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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 23, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 23, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8, 10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimoto (WO2021/065615; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2022/0403069 relied upon) in view of Washizu (WO2020/246218; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2022/0235209 relied upon) and Nakazono (JP2013-100449; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 16 and 18, Ichimoto teaches a tire comprising a tread (paragraphs [0017]-[0018]), where E* when water-wet/E* before water wet x 100 may be 90 or lower (paragraph [0038]), and where the rubber composition can contain carboxylic acid-modified SBR (paragraph [0046]), where the rubber molecules of the rubber components are preferably partially or fully cross-linked by ionic bonding, which allows E* to decrease only when wet with water due to the reversibility of the noncovalent ionic bonds (paragraph [0048]), where the cation can be derived from compounds containing alkali or alkaline earth metal elements such as lithium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, or strontium (paragraphs [0051]-[0053]), and where the rubber composition can contain sulfur and one or more vulcanization accelerators (paragraphs [0113]-[0117]). As a rubber composition comprising a modified rubber containing an anion derived from carboxylic acid and a cation containing alkali or alkaline earth metals reversibly changing with water by reversibly breaking or reforming an ionic bond between rubber molecules is how the invention achieves the E* when water-wet/E* when dry and tan delta when wet/tan delta when dry ratio (see paragraph [0019] of Applicant’s specification), it is expected that the tire of Ichimoto would also achieve tan delta when wet / tan delta when dry ≥ 1.10 or 1.15 as claimed in claims 1 and 3. Ichimoto does not specifically disclose circumferential grooves. In a tire similarly directed to a composition with different wet and dry properties comprising a carboxyl modified SBR (paragraphs [0071]-[0072]), Washizu teaches using at least one circumferential groove (paragraph [0028]), a preferable maximum tread thickness of 4 to 35 mm (paragraph [0172]), and at a 70% depth compared to tread thickness (paragraph [0173]), resulting in a range of largest groove depth (claimed D) of 2.8 to 24.5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use circumferential grooves having a depth as taught by Washizu in the tire of Ichimoto in order to better achieve advantageous effect with a tread composition that changes properties when wet (see Washizu at paragraph [0172]). For depths D of 9.0 mm or greater, given that Ichimoto teaches E* when water-wet/E* before water wet x 100 may be 90 or lower, would result in D/( E* when water-wet/E* when dry) > 9.0 as required by claim 1. Ichimoto does not specifically disclose that the modified SBR is emulsion polymerized, however such process is commonly used in the tire industry as taught by Washizu (see paragraph [0067]), and it would have been obvious to do so as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Ichimoto does not specifically disclose that the modified SBR comprises methacrylic acid in its molecule. In a tire similarly directed to an SBR rubber (machine translation at page 2, second to last paragraph) which can be modified by a carboxyl group (machine translation at page 4, first two full paragraphs), Nakazono teaches methacrylic acid is a preferable type of carboxyl group modifier (machine translation at page 4, first two full paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include methacrylic acid as the carboxyl group as taught by Nakazono in the modified SBR rubber of the tire of Ichimoto (combined) as a preferable carboxyl group for modifying an SBR rubber in a tire.
Regarding claim 2, Ichimoto teaches that E* when water-wet/E* before water wet x 100 may be 90 or lower and the lower limit is not limited (paragraph [0038]), fully encompassing the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Ichimoto teaches that E* when dry is preferably 4.0 MPa or higher (paragraph [0040]), fully falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Ichimoto does not specifically disclose the tan delta when dry of the rubber composition. In a tire similarly directed to a composition with different wet and dry properties comprising a carboxyl modified SBR (paragraphs [0071]-[0072]), Washizu teaches using a tan delta when dry of 0.18 or more (paragraph [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a tan delta as taught by Washizu in the tire of Ichimoto in order to more suitably achieve the effect of improved overall performance in terms of wet grip performance and dry grip performance (see Washizu at paragraphs [0030] and [0050]).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Ichimoto teaches that the rubber composition can contain carboxylic acid-modified SBR (paragraph [0046]), and where the cation can be derived from compounds containing alkali or alkaline earth metal elements such as lithium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, or strontium (paragraphs [0051]-[0053]), but does not specifically disclose using an alkali metal salt or alkaline earth metal salt. In a tire similarly directed to an SBR rubber (machine translation at page 2, second to last paragraph) which can be modified by a carboxyl group (machine translation at page 4, first two full paragraphs), Nakazono teaches using calcium acetate as a preferred metal salt (machine translation at page 11, second paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use calcium acetate as taught by Nakazono as the cation providing element of the tire of Ichimoto (combined) as a known preferable metal salt for use in a carboxylic acid modified SBR in a tire (see Nakazono machine translation at page 2, second to last paragraph, at page 4, first two paragraphs, and at page 11, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Ichimoto teaches that the amount of the carboxylic acid-modified SBR is preferably 50% by mass or more (paragraph [0058]), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Ichimoto teaches an amount of the compounds containing the metal element of preferably 0.5 parts by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of rubber components (paragraph [0055]), fully encompassing the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Ichimoto teaches a tire comprising a tread (paragraphs [0017]-[0018]), where E* when water-wet/E* before water wet x 100 may be 90 or lower (paragraph [0038]), and where the rubber composition can contain carboxylic acid-modified SBR (paragraph [0046]), where the rubber molecules of the rubber components are preferably partially or fully cross-linked by ionic bonding, which allows E* to decrease only when wet with water due to the reversibility of the noncovalent ionic bonds (paragraph [0048]), where the cation can be derived from compounds containing alkali or alkaline earth metal elements such as lithium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, or strontium (paragraphs [0051]-[0053]). As a rubber composition comprising a modified rubber containing an anion derived from carboxylic acid and a cation containing alkali or alkaline earth metals reversibly changing with water by reversibly breaking or reforming an ionic bond between rubber molecules is how the invention achieves the E* when water-wet/E* when dry and tan delta when wet/tan delta when dry ratio (see paragraph [0019] of Applicant’s specification), it is expected that the tire of Ichimoto would also achieve tan delta when wet / tan delta when dry ≥ 1.10. Ichimoto does not specifically disclose circumferential grooves. In a tire similarly directed to a composition with different wet and dry properties comprising a carboxyl modified SBR (paragraphs [0071]-[0072]), Washizu teaches using at least one circumferential groove (paragraph [0028]), a preferable maximum tread thickness of 4 to 35 mm (paragraph [0172]), and at a 70% depth compared to tread thickness (paragraph [0173]), resulting in a range of largest groove depth (claimed D) of 2.8 to 24.5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use circumferential grooves having a depth as taught by Washizu in the tire of Ichimoto in order to better achieve advantageous effect with a tread composition that changes properties when wet (see Washizu at paragraph [0172]). For depths D of 9.0 mm or greater, given that Ichimoto teaches E* when water-wet/E* before water wet x 100 may be 90 or lower, would result in D/( E* when water-wet/E* when dry) > 9.0 as required by claim 17. Ichimoto does not specifically disclose using an alkali metal salt or alkaline earth metal salt selected from the claimed group. In a tire similarly directed to an SBR rubber (machine translation at page 2, second to last paragraph) which can be modified by a carboxyl group (machine translation at page 4, first two full paragraphs), Nakazono teaches using calcium acetate as a preferred metal salt (machine translation at page 11, second paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use calcium acetate as taught by Nakazono as the cation providing element of the tire of Ichimoto (combined) as a known preferable metal salt for use in a carboxylic acid modified SBR in a tire (see Nakazono machine translation at page 2, second to last paragraph, at page 4, first two paragraphs, and at page 11, second paragraph).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimoto in view of Washizu and Nakazono as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ochiai (JP2009-138094; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14-15, Ichimoto teaches a preferable amount of liquid polymers, such as liquid diene polymers, of 30 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of the rubber components (paragraphs [0080]-[0081]), but does not specifically disclose that the diene-based polymer is modified. Ochiai teaches using a modified liquid rubber, preferably modified by a carboxyl group (machine translation at pages 2-3), with a specific embodiment using Kuraray LIR-410 (the same maleic acid modified liquid IR used by Applicant) (machine translation at page 5; table 1, inventive embodiment 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a modified liquid rubber LIR-410 as taught by Ochiai as the liquid diene polymer of the tire of Ichimoto (combined) in order to suppress heat generation during running while maintaining workability, hardness, and elongation at break (see Ochiai machine translation at page 2, second and fifth paragraphs). Ichimoto teaches that the cation can be derived from compounds containing alkali or alkaline earth metal elements such as lithium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, or strontium (paragraphs [0051]-[0053]), but does not specifically disclose using an alkali metal salt or alkaline earth metal salt. In a tire similarly directed to an SBR rubber (machine translation at page 2, second to last paragraph) which can be modified by a carboxyl group (machine translation at page 4, first two full paragraphs), Nakazono teaches using calcium acetate as a preferred metal salt (machine translation at page 11, second paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use calcium acetate as taught by Nakazono as the cation providing element of the tire of Ichimoto (combined) as a known preferable metal salt for use in a carboxylic acid modified SBR in a tire (see Nakazono machine translation at page 2, second to last paragraph, at page 4, first two paragraphs, and at page 11, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Ichimoto teaches an amount of the compounds containing the metal element of preferably 0.5 parts by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of rubber components (paragraph [0055]), fully encompassing the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the double patenting rejections over the ‘514 and ‘441 applications have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ichimoto fails to disclose or suggest features [1](1-2) (tan delta when wet / tan delta when dry ≥ 1.10) or [1](2) D/(E* wet / E* dry) > 9.0 of the claimed invention, however Applicant did not respond to the reasoning set forth above as to why these features were disclosed or suggested, and therefore this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ichimoto teaches away from the combination of E* wet / E* dry ≤ 0.90 and the rubber composition contains sulfur and a vulcanization accelerator, because the comparative examples of Ichimoto include sulfur and a vulcanization accelerator but do not have E* wet / E* dry ≤ 0.90. This argument is unpersuasive because Ichimoto teaches the use of sulfur and vulcanization accelerator as optional components of the invention, Ichimoto is not limited to the specific embodiments, and the specific embodiments have other chemical differences that are believed to result in the inferior E* wet / E* dry ratio.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues that Ichimoto teaches away from employing at least one alkali metal salt or alkaline earth metal salt since all of the inventive embodiments employ a nitrogen compound, but no metal or metalloid compound. This argument is not persuasive because Ichimoto is not limited to the specific embodiments, and teaches the use of alkali metals or alkaline earth metals, and the secondary reference Nakazono teaches as a preferred metal salt one of the instant invention’s preferred metal salts as is claimed in claims 6 and 17.
Applicant argues that Nakazono does not teach a number of the claimed features. 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). Applicant also argues that Nakazono teaches many other modifiers other than methacrylic acid, so there is no particular reason to select methacrylic acid as the modifier. However, Applicant also discloses numerous other types of modifiers that can be used in the invention. Further, Applicant has submitted no evidence that methacrylic acid results in a superior product compared to other modifiers, because no inventive embodiments were performed with other modifiers, and the two comparative examples used unmodified rubbers.
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 March 14, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749