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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishigami (JP 2007223480, see updated machine translation) (of record), Ichimura (JP 2016159852, see update machine translation) (of record), and any one of Hashimoto (JP 2008049741, see machine translation) and/or Bando et al. (JP 2005255099, see machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Nishigami discloses a tire, comprising: a tread rubber (Fig. 1: 18) exposed on a tread surface; main grooves (Figs. 1-3: 20) and land portions formed in the tread surface (Fig. 1); and a stress relaxation layer (Figs. 1-3: 22) formed on a surface of a groove bottom (Figs. 1-3: 20A) of a main groove (Figs. 1-3: 20) of the main grooves; the stress relaxation layer being composed mainly of a diene rubber material and a non-diene rubber material and containing carbon, a vulcanizing agent, and a vulcanization accelerator ([0009]-[0010], [0017]-[0025]), the stress relaxation layer (Fig. 3: 22) extending continuously from the groove bottom (Fig. 3: 20A) of the main groove (Fig. 3: 20) to a road contact surface of at least one land portion of the land portions (Fig. 3), bending at an edge portion of the land portion (Fig. 3: 20C) and covering the edge portion of the land portion in a cross-sectional view in a tire meridian direction (Fig. 3).
Nishigami further illustrates a width Wc of the stress relaxation layer on the road contact surface of the land portion with respect to a groove depth Hg of the main groove is approximately 0.3 (See annotated Fig. 3 below), which falls well within the claimed range of 0.06 ≤ Wc/Hg (i.e., the depicted ratio is more than 5 times larger than the claimed ratio, which is well above the minimum value of the very broad claimed range). While Nishigami does not state whether the figure is drawn to scale, Figure 3 provides a close-up view of the groove and stress relaxation layer, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have nonetheless found it obvious that the depicted ratio Wc/Hg would reasonably be in a range well within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.06. Case law holds 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the ratio Wc/Hg. Accordingly, the figures serve to illustrate an embodiment that falls well within the claimed range, and support the disclosure of the claimed proportional relationship, even in the absence of explicit numerical dimensions.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Nishigami does not expressly recite a total width ΣWc of the stress relaxation layer on the road contact surface of one of the land portions with respect to a ground contact width Wb of the land portions.
Ichimura discloses a tire comprising a stress relaxation layer that may extend to the shoulders of the adjacent land portion(s) (Figs. 2-6), wherein a total width ΣWc (Fig. 4: We) of the stress relaxation layer (Figs. 2, 4: 1531) on the road contact surface of one of the land portions with respect to a ground contact width Wb (Fig. 2: Wr) of the land portions being in a range of 0.1 ≤ ΣWc/Wb ≤ 0.4 ([0054]), which overlaps with the claimed range of ΣWc/Wb ≤ 0.70, as well as the claimed range of 0.02 ≤ Wc/Wb ≤ 0.50. Case law holds 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the ratio ΣWc/Wb. In this manner, the width of the edge rubber is optimized, the function is ensured, and premature uneven wear caused at the edge portion is suppressed ([0054], [0081]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Nishigami in order to provide the ratio ΣWc/Wb in the aforementioned range for the advantages discussed above as taught by Ichimura.
Modified Nishigami does not expressly recite a modulus Mc of the stress relaxation layer at 100% elongation at 100°C with respect to a modulus Mt of the tread rubber at 100% elongation at 100°C.
Hashimoto discloses a tire that can suppress uneven wear that tends to occur in the initial stages of wear while maintaining grip performance ([0004]-[0005]), wherein a modulus Mc of the surface layer of a groove at 100% elongation at 100°C with respect to a modulus Mt of the tread rubber at 100% elongation at 100°C is in a range of 1.1 ≤ Mc/Mt ≤ 2.0 ([0005], [0010]-[0012]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.45 ≤ Mc/Mt ≤ 1.15. Although Hashimoto discloses providing a stress relaxation layer with a differing modulus to the tread surface in a different manner than Nishigami, Hashimoto also discloses that it is advantageous in terms of suppressing uneven wear and maintaining grip performance to provide a groove surface layer with a modulus at 100% elongation at 100°C that is 1.1 to 2.0 times great than the modulus at 100% elongation at 100°C of the tread rubber. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Nishigami in order to provide a ratio of the modulus of the stress relaxation layer at the surface of the groove to the modulus of the tread rubber in the aforementioned range for the advantages discussed above, as taught by Hashimoto.
Additionally or alternatively, Bando discloses a tire comprising a stress relaxation layer (Fig. 1: 2) similar to Nishigami, wherein the stress relaxation layer has a high amount of carbon black and a modulus of 3 to 10 MPa at 100% elongation at 100°C ([0005]-[0006], [0009], [0017]). The stress relaxation layer covers the edges and groove walls of the main grooves, and even when the tire temperature rises and the tread rigidity decreases during high speed driving such as sports driving, the rigidity near the edges of the main grooves is maintained and excellent handling stability is enabled ([0006], [0009], [0012], [0017]). Moreover, if the modulus is less than 3 MPa, it becomes difficult to ensure handling stability when the tire temperature rises ([0017]). However, if the pressure is increased beyond 10 MPa, the difference in rigidity between the tread rubber and the surrounding rubber becomes too large, which can easily lead to abnormal wear ([0017]). In other words, the modulus Mc of the stress relaxation layer at 100% elongation at 100°C is considered to be a result effective variable that will affect the handling stability and wear of the tread and grooves. Thus, while Bando does not explicitly disclose the value for a ratio Mc/Mt, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said ratio. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the ratio Mc/Mt in order to maintain the rigidity near the edges of the main grooves and enable excellent handling stability, as taught by Bando.
Regarding claim 3, Nishigami further discloses that a rubber hardness Hc of the stress relaxation layer is harder than a rubber hardness Ht of the tread rubber as is conventionally known ([0006], [0017]).
Furthermore, Ichimura discloses a rubber hardness Hc of the stress relaxation layer (Figs. 1-5: 1521, Hs3c) with respect to a rubber hardness Ht of the tread rubber (Figs. 1-5: 151, 152, Hs1) is in a range of 0 ≤ Ht – Hc ≤ 10 ([0046], [0048]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 ≤ Ht – Hc ≤ 32. Case law holds 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the relationship Ht – Hc. In this manner, the tread’s ability to follow the road surface when the tire is in contact with it is improved, resulting in increased grip and improved handling stability on dry surfaces ([0048]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Nishigami in order to provide the hardness of the stress relaxation layer and the tread rubber in the aforementioned relationship for the advantages discussed above, as taught by Ichimura.
Regarding claim 6, Ichimura further discloses the width Wc (Fig. 4: We) of the stress relaxation layer on the road contact surface of the land portions is in a range of 5 mm to 15 mm ([0081]), and a thickness Gc1 (Fig. 4: G3b) of the stress relaxation layer at the groove bottom of the main groove is in a range of 1.0 mm to 2.0 mm ([0062]). Accordingly, the width Wc (Fig. 4: We) of the stress relaxation layer on the road contact surface of the land portions with respect to a thickness Gc1 (Fig. 4: G3b) of the stress relaxation layer at the groove bottom of the main groove is in a range of 2.5 ≤ Wc/Gc1 ≤ 15, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2.0 ≤ Wc/Gc1 ≤ 70. Case law holds 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the ratio Wc/Gc1.
Regarding claim 7, Nishigami further discloses a thickness Gc1 of the stress relaxation layer at the groove bottom of the main groove is 0.2 to 1 mm ([0016]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.030 mm ≤ Gc1 ≤ 0.400 mm. Case law holds 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a thickness Gc1 of the stress relaxation layer at the groove bottom of the main groove.
Regarding claim 13, Nishigami discloses a tire, comprising: a tread rubber (Fig. 1: 18) exposed on a tread surface; main grooves (Figs. 1-3: 20) and land portions formed in the tread surface (Fig. 1); and a stress relaxation layer (Figs. 1-3: 22) formed on a surface of a groove bottom (Figs. 1-3: 20A) of a main groove (Figs. 1-3: 20) of the main grooves; the stress relaxation layer being composed mainly of a diene rubber material and a non-diene rubber material and containing carbon, a vulcanizing agent, and a vulcanization accelerator ([0009]-[0010], [0017]-[0025]), the stress relaxation layer (Fig. 3: 22) extending continuously from the groove bottom (Fig. 3: 20A) of the main groove (Fig. 3: 20) to a road contact surface of at least one land portion of the land portions (Fig. 3), bending at an edge portion of the land portion (Fig. 3: 20C) and covering the edge portion of the land portion in a cross-sectional view in a tire meridian direction (Fig. 3).
Nishigami further illustrates a width Wc of the stress relaxation layer on the road contact surface of the land portion with respect to a groove depth Hg of the main groove is approximately 0.3 (See annotated Fig. 3 below), which falls well within the claimed range of 0.06 ≤ Wc/Hg (i.e., the depicted ratio is more than 5 times larger than the claimed ratio, which is well above the minimum value of the very broad claimed range). While Nishigami does not state whether the figure is drawn to scale, Figure 3 provides a close-up view of the groove and stress relaxation layer, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have nonetheless found it obvious that the depicted ratio Wc/Hg would be reasonably be in a range well within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.06. Case law holds 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the ratio Wc/Hg. Accordingly, the figures serve to illustrate an embodiment that falls well within the claimed range, and support the disclosure of the claimed proportional relationship, even in the absence of explicit numerical dimensions.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Nishigami does not expressly recite a total width ΣWc of the stress relaxation layer on the road contact surface of one of the land portions with respect to a ground contact width Wb of the land portions.
Ichimura discloses a tire comprising a stress relaxation layer that may extend to the shoulders of the adjacent land portion(s) (Figs. 2-6), wherein a total width ΣWc (Fig. 4: We) of the stress relaxation layer (Figs. 2, 4: 1531) on the road contact surface of one of the land portions with respect to a ground contact width Wb (Fig. 2: Wr) of the land portions being in a range of 0.1 ≤ ΣWc/Wb ≤ 0.4 ([0054]), which overlaps with the claimed range of ΣWc/Wb ≤ 0.70. Case law holds 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the ratio ΣWc/Wb. In this manner, the width of the edge rubber is optimized, the function is ensured, and premature uneven wear caused at the edge portion is suppressed ([0054], [0081]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Nishigami in order to provide the ratio ΣWc/Wb in the aforementioned range for the advantages discussed above as taught by Ichimura.
However, Nishigami does not expressly recite a modulus Mc of the stress relaxation layer at 100% elongation at 100°C with respect to a modulus Mt of the tread rubber at 100% elongation at 100°C.
Hashimoto discloses a tire that can suppress uneven wear that tends to occur in the initial stages of wear while maintaining grip performance ([0004]-[0005]), wherein a modulus Mc of the surface layer of a groove at 100% elongation at 100°C with respect to a modulus Mt of the tread rubber at 100% elongation at 100°C is in a range of 1.1 ≤ Mc/Mt ≤ 2.0 ([0005], [0010]-[0012]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.45 ≤ Mc/Mt ≤ 1.15. Although Hashimoto discloses providing a stress relaxation layer with a differing modulus to the tread surface in a different manner than Nishigami, Hashimoto also discloses that it is advantageous in terms of suppressing uneven wear and maintaining grip performance to provide a groove surface layer with a modulus at 100% elongation at 100°C that is 1.1 to 2.0 times great than the modulus at 100% elongation at 100°C of the tread rubber. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Nishigami in order to provide a ratio of the modulus of the stress relaxation layer at the surface of the groove to the modulus of the tread rubber in the aforementioned range for the advantages discussed above, as taught by Hashimoto.
Additionally or alternatively, Bando discloses a tire comprising a stress relaxation layer (Fig. 1: 2) similar to Nishigami, wherein the stress relaxation layer has a high amount of carbon black and a modulus of 3 to 10 MPa at 100% elongation at 100°C ([0005]-[0006], [0009], [0017]). The stress relaxation layer covers the edges and groove walls of the main grooves, and even when the tire temperature rises and the tread rigidity decreases during high speed driving such as sports driving, the rigidity near the edges of the main grooves is maintained and excellent handling stability is enabled ([0006], [0009], [0012], [0017]). Moreover, if the modulus is less than 3 MPa, it becomes difficult to ensure handling stability when the tire temperature rises ([0017]). However, if the pressure is increased beyond 10 MPa, the difference in rigidity between the tread rubber and the surrounding rubber becomes too large, which can easily lead to abnormal wear ([0017]). In other words, the modulus Mc of the stress relaxation layer at 100% elongation at 100°C is considered to be a result effective variable that will affect the handling stability and wear of the tread and grooves. Thus, while Bando does not explicitly disclose the value for a ratio Mc/Mt, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said ratio. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the ratio Mc/Mt in order to maintain the rigidity near the edges of the main grooves and enable excellent handling stability, as taught by Bando.
Nishigami further discloses that a rubber hardness Hc of the stress relaxation layer is harder than a rubber hardness Ht of the tread rubber as is conventionally known ([0006], [0017]). Furthermore, Ichimura discloses a rubber hardness Hc of the stress relaxation layer (Figs. 1-5: 1521, Hs3c) with respect to a rubber hardness Ht of the tread rubber (Figs. 1-5: 151, 152, Hs1) is in a range of 0 ≤ Ht – Hc ≤ 10 ([0046], [0048]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 ≤ Ht – Hc ≤ 32. Case law holds 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the relationship Ht – Hc. In this manner, the tread’s ability to follow the road surface when the tire is in contact with it is improved, resulting in increased grip and improved handling stability on dry surfaces ([0048]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Nishigami in order to provide the hardness of the stress relaxation layer and the tread rubber in the aforementioned relationship for the advantages discussed above, as taught by Ichimura.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishigami (JP 2007223480, see updated machine translation) (of record), Ichimura (JP 2016159852, see update machine translation) (of record), [any one of Hashimoto (JP 2008049741, see machine translation) and/or Bando et al. (JP 2005255099, see machine translation)] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koshio (JP 2008126836, see updated machine translation provided) (of record).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nishigami does not expressly recite a left groove wall angle θgA (degrees) and a right groove wall angle θgB (degrees) of the main groove with respect to a groove width Wg (mm) and the groove depth Hg (mm) of the main groove have a relationship 2.0 x (Wg + Hg) - 35.0 ≤ θgA + θgB ≤ 4.5 x (Wg + Hg) - 22.5.
Koshio discloses a tire tread comprising main grooves and land portions formed in the tread surface (Figs. 1-4), wherein left and right groove wall angles θgA, θgB (degrees) (Fig. 3: θ, W) of the main groove with respect to a groove width Wg (mm) and the groove depth Hg (mm) of the main groove have a relationship where Hg/Wg is within a range of 130% to 150% and the groove wall angle is in the range of 10 to 20 degrees ([0017], [0027], [0037], [0039]). In this manner, it is avoided that the main groove becomes too shallow and the heat generation property of the tread portion deteriorates or the drainage property becomes insufficient, and further, the deterioration of the stone biting property is avoided, and the tire is prevented from becoming susceptible to stone trapping without making the groove width too wide ([0018], [0037], [0039]). Koshio further discloses an example wherein the groove depth Hg is 17 mm deep ([0048]). Accordingly, the formula θgA + θgB is in the range of 20 to 40 degrees, the formula 2.0 x (Wg + Hg) - 35.0 is either approximately 22.8 or 26.2, and the formula 4.5 x (Wg + Hg) - 22.5 is either approximately 107.6 or 115.2. Thereby, the formula 2.0 x (Wg + Hg) - 35.0 ≤ θgA + θgB ≤ 4.5 x (Wg + Hg) - 22.5 is satisfied. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify the groove(s) of Nishigami with left and right groove wall angles θgA, θgB (degrees) (Fig. 3: θ, W) of the main groove with respect to a groove width Wg (mm) and the groove depth Hg (mm) of the main groove having values that satisfy the aforementioned formula for the advantages disclosed by Koshio as discussed above.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishigami (JP 2007223480, see updated machine translation) (of record), Ichimura (JP 2016159852, see update machine translation) (of record), [any one of Hashimoto (JP 2008049741, see machine translation) and/or Bando et al. (JP 2005255099, see machine translation)] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koshio (JP 2008126836, see updated machine translation provided) (of record) and Hashiba et al. (JP 2012144247, see updated machine translation provided) (of record).
Regarding claim 11, modified Nishigami does not expressly recite a minimum value Rg_min (mm) of curvature radii RgA and RgB of connection portions between the groove bottom and left and right groove walls of the main groove with respect to a groove width Wg (mm), the groove depth Hg (mm), and a left groove wall angle θgA (degrees) and a right groove wall angle θgB (degrees) of the main groove satisfies a following condition:
PNG
media_image2.png
79
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Koshio discloses a tire tread comprising main grooves and land portions formed in the tread surface (Figs. 1-4), wherein left and right groove wall angles θgA, θgB (degrees) (Fig. 3: θ, W) of the main groove is in the range of 10 to 20 degrees ([0017], [0027], [0037], [0039]). In this manner, it is avoided that the main groove becomes too shallow and the heat generation property of the tread portion deteriorates or the drainage property becomes insufficient, and further, the deterioration of the stone biting property is avoided, and the tire is prevented from becoming susceptible to stone trapping without making the groove width too wide ([0018], [0037], [0039]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify the groove(s) of Nishigami with left and right groove wall angles θgA, θgB (degrees) of the main groove having values in the aforementioned ranges for the advantages disclosed by Koshio as discussed above.
Hashiba discloses a tire tread that can effectively prevent cracks that tend to occur at the groove bottoms of shoulder longitudinal grooves, thereby improving durability ([0001]), comprising main grooves and land portions formed in the tread surface, wherein a minimum value Rg_min (mm) of curvature radii RgA, RgB (Fig. 2: r) of connection portions between a groove bottom and left and right groove walls of a main groove (Fig. 2: 15) is preferably 30% to 200% of a groove width Wg (mm) (Fig. 2: W1) ([0025]), wherein the groove width Wg is set to about 5 to 9 mm, and the groove depth Hg is set to about 6 to 9 mm ([0022]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify the groove(s) of Nishigami with left and right groove wall angles θgA, θgB (degrees) of the main groove, a groove width, and a groove depth having values in the aforementioned ranges for the advantages disclosed by Hashiba as discussed above.
Accordingly, modified Nishigami further in view of Koshio and Hashiba discloses that with the aforementioned values the formula Rg_min / (Wg – Hg x tanθgA - Hg x tanθgB) will be in the range of -6.4 to 72.8, which has values satisfying the claimed formula above.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishigami (JP 2007223480, see updated machine translation) (of record), Ichimura (JP 2016159852, see update machine translation) (of record), [any one of Hashimoto (JP 2008049741, see machine translation) and/or Bando et al. (JP 2005255099, see machine translation)] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Janajreh et al. (US 6213181) (of record).
Regarding claim 12, Nishigami further discloses a thickness Gc1 of the stress relaxation layer at the groove bottom of the main groove is 0.2 to 1 mm ([0016]). However, Nishigami does not expressly recite a groove bottom gauge UG (mm) of the tread rubber.
Janajreh discloses a tire having a stress relaxation layer along the groove surface (Fig. 3), wherein a thickness of the stress relaxation layer (Fig. 3: t) is less than a groove bottom gauge of the tread (Fig. 3: T). In this manner, it is possible to prevent the formation of cracks propagating from the base of the grooves (Col. 6 lines 27-42). Moreover, the ratio between a thickness Gc1 (mm) of the stress relaxation layer at the groove bottom of the main groove and a groove bottom gauge UG (mm) of the tread rubber is preferably approximately 0.4 (Col. 6 lines 37-39). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Nishigami in order to provide the ratio Gc1 to UG as taught by Janajreh for the advantages as discussed above. Accordingly, the claimed relationship of 0.055 x e^(-0.452 x UG) ≤ Gc1 ≤ 0.070 x e^(-0.620 x UG) + 0.150 is satisfied when the ratio of Gc1/UG is 0.4 and the thickness Gc1 is 0.2 mm.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishigami (JP 2007223480, see updated machine translation) (of record), Ichimura (JP 2016159852, see update machine translation) (of record), [any one of Hashimoto (JP 2008049741, see machine translation) and/or Bando et al. (JP 2005255099, see machine translation)], and optionally Janajreh (US 6213181) (of record).
Regarding claim 14, Nishigami discloses a tire, comprising: a tread rubber (Fig. 1: 18) exposed on a tread surface; main grooves (Figs. 1-3: 20) and land portions formed in the tread surface (Fig. 1); and a stress relaxation layer (Figs. 1-3: 22) formed on a surface of a groove bottom (Figs. 1-3: 20A) of a main groove (Figs. 1-3: 20) of the main grooves; the stress relaxation layer being composed mainly of a diene rubber material and a non-diene rubber material and containing carbon, a vulcanizing agent, and a vulcanization accelerator ([0009]-[0010], [0017]-[0025]), the stress relaxation layer (Fig. 3: 22) extending continuously from the groove bottom (Fig. 3: 20A) of the main groove (Fig. 3: 20) to a road contact surface of at least one land portion of the land portions (Fig. 3), bending at an edge portion of the land portion (Fig. 3: 20C) and covering the edge portion of the land portion in a cross-sectional view in a tire meridian direction (Fig. 3).
Nishigami further illustrates a width Wc of the stress relaxation layer on the road contact surface of the land portion with respect to a groove depth Hg of the main groove is approximately 0.3 (See annotated Fig. 3 below), which falls well within the claimed range of 0.06 ≤ Wc/Hg (i.e., the depicted ratio is more than 5 times larger than the claimed ratio, which is well above the minimum value of the very broad claimed range). While Nishigami does not state whether the figure is drawn to scale, Figure 3 provides a close-up view of the groove and stress relaxation layer, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have nonetheless found it obvious that the depicted ratio Wc/Hg would be reasonably be in a range well within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.06. Case law holds 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the ratio Wc/Hg. Accordingly, the figures serve to illustrate an embodiment that falls well within the claimed range, and support the disclosure of the claimed proportional relationship, even in the absence of explicit numerical dimensions.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nishigami further clearly illustrates a thickness Gc1 of the stress relaxation layer (Fig. 1: 22) at the groove bottom (Fig. 1: 20A) of the main groove (Fig. 1: 20) has a relationship Gc1 < UG with respect to a groove bottom gauge UG mm of the tread rubber (Fig. 1: see thickness/distance between groove bottom 20A and belt 16).
Optionally, Janajreh discloses a tire having a stress relaxation layer along the groove surface (Fig. 3), wherein a thickness of the stress relaxation layer (Fig. 3: t) is less than a groove bottom gauge of the tread (Fig. 3: T). In this manner, it is possible to prevent the formation of cracks propagating from the base of the grooves (Col. 6 lines 27-42). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Nishigami in order to provide a relationship Gc1 < UG so as to prevent the formation of cracks propagating from the base of the grooves, as taught by Janajreh.
However, Nishigami does not expressly recite a total width ΣWc of the stress relaxation layer on the road contact surface of one of the land portions with respect to a ground contact width Wb of the land portions.
Ichimura discloses a tire comprising a stress relaxation layer that may extend to the shoulders of the adjacent land portion(s) (Figs. 2-6), wherein a total width ΣWc (Fig. 4: We) of the stress relaxation layer (Figs. 2, 4: 1531) on the road contact surface of one of the land portions with respect to a ground contact width Wb (Fig. 2: Wr) of the land portions being in a range of 0.1 ≤ ΣWc/Wb ≤ 0.4 ([0054]), which overlaps with the claimed range of ΣWc/Wb ≤ 0.70. Case law holds 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the ratio ΣWc/Wb. In this manner, the width of the edge rubber is optimized, the function is ensured, and premature uneven wear caused at the edge portion is suppressed ([0054], [0081]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Nishigami in order to provide the ratio ΣWc/Wb in the aforementioned range for the advantages discussed above as taught by Ichimura.
However, Nishigami does not expressly recite a modulus Mc of the stress relaxation layer at 100% elongation at 100°C with respect to a modulus Mt of the tread rubber at 100% elongation at 100°C.
Hashimoto discloses a tire that can suppress uneven wear that tends to occur in the initial stages of wear while maintaining grip performance ([0004]-[0005]), wherein a modulus Mc of the surface layer of a groove at 100% elongation at 100°C with respect to a modulus Mt of the tread rubber at 100% elongation at 100°C is in a range of 1.1 ≤ Mc/Mt ≤ 2.0 ([0005], [0010]-[0012]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.45 ≤ Mc/Mt ≤ 1.15. Although Hashimoto discloses providing a stress relaxation layer with a differing modulus to the tread surface in a different manner than Nishigami, Hashimoto also discloses that it is advantageous in terms of suppressing uneven wear and maintaining grip performance to provide a groove surface layer with a modulus at 100% elongation at 100°C that is 1.1 to 2.0 times great than the modulus at 100% elongation at 100°C of the tread rubber. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Nishigami in order to provide a ratio of the modulus of the stress relaxation layer at the surface of the groove to the modulus of the tread rubber in the aforementioned range for the advantages discussed above, as taught by Hashimoto.
Additionally or alternatively, Bando discloses a tire comprising a stress relaxation layer (Fig. 1: 2) similar to Nishigami, wherein the stress relaxation layer has a high amount of carbon black and a modulus of 3 to 10 MPa at 100% elongation at 100°C ([0005]-[0006], [0009], [0017]). The stress relaxation layer covers the edges and groove walls of the main grooves, and even when the tire temperature rises and the tread rigidity decreases during high speed driving such as sports driving, the rigidity near the edges of the main grooves is maintained and excellent handling stability is enabled ([0006], [0009], [0012], [0017]). Moreover, if the modulus is less than 3 MPa, it becomes difficult to ensure handling stability when the tire temperature rises ([0017]). However, if the pressure is increased beyond 10 MPa, the difference in rigidity between the tread rubber and the surrounding rubber becomes too large, which can easily lead to abnormal wear ([0017]). In other words, the modulus Mc of the stress relaxation layer at 100% elongation at 100°C is considered to be a result effective variable that will affect the handling stability and wear of the tread and grooves. Thus, while Bando does not explicitly disclose the value for a ratio Mc/Mt, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said ratio. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the ratio Mc/Mt in order to maintain the rigidity near the edges of the main grooves and enable excellent handling stability, as taught by Bando.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1 and 4. In particular, the limitation “a tensile strength TBc of the stress relaxation layer with respect to a tensile strength TBt of the tread rubber is in a range of 0.30 ≤ TBc/TBt ≤ 0.90.”
Regarding claims 8-9, the claims remain allowable for the reasons of record as discussed in the 10/21/2025 Final Rejection.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Nishigami (JP 2007223480, see updated machine translation) (of record), Ichimura (JP 2016159852, see update machine translation) (of record), Hashimoto (JP 2008049741, see machine translation), and Bando et al. (JP 2005255099, see machine translation).
The prior art of record discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the detailed rejection above. However, no prior art of record teaches or suggests the specifically claimed relationship of 0.30 ≤ TBc/TBt ≤ 0.90 for a tensile strength TBc of the stress relaxation layer with respect to a tensile strength TBt of the tread rubber. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have found it obvious to modify the prior art of record to have the specifically claimed properties for the tensile strength ratio, especially without any motivation or teaching to do so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the claimed ratio Mc/Mt provides an advantageous effect that suppresses uneven wear of the land portion due to excessive increase in modulus Mc of the stress relation layer. Similarly, on page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the difference in hardness Ht – Hc provides an advantageous effect that suppresses breakage of the stress relaxation layer due to a foreign matter entering the main groove during rolling of the tire.
Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. See MPEP 716.02. The burden is on Applicant to establish that the results are unexpected and significant. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." See MPEP 716.02(b). Applicant has the burden of explaining any data they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II). Moreover, whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. See MPEP 715.02(d). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d)(II). In this case, Applicant has not provided the requisite data or evidence to demonstrate criticality of the claimed ranges.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the examiner relies on figures not drawn to scale for inferred measurements. The examiner notes that the reliance on Figure 3 of Nishigami in the detailed discussion above is to establish that Nishigami illustrates an embodiment that falls well within the claimed range (i.e., the depicted ratio is more than 5 times larger than the claimed ratio, which is well above the minimum value of the very broad claimed range), and support the disclosure of the claimed proportional relationship, even in the absence of explicit numerical dimensions. Nishigami very clearly illustrates a close up depiction of one embodiment of the stress relaxation layer, which even if not stated that it is to scale, clearly shows proportions for Wc/Hg that are well within the claimed range, and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that Wc/Hg in Nishigami would fall within the broadly claimed range based upon the proportions embodied in the figure.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues there is no articulated reason to modify the prior art layer in view of Koshio/Hashiba’s groove mechanics for claims 10-11. Applicant further argues the Office improperly relies on post-hoc compatibility rather than a teaching or motivation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. 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, Koshio has an express teaching and motivation to modify groove structure in the tread so as to avoid the main groove from becoming too shallow and deteriorating the heat generation property of the tread portion or the drainage property, and avoiding the deterioration of the stone biting property such that the tire is prevented from becoming susceptible to stone trapping without making the groove width too wide. Moreover, Hashiba has an express teaching and motivation to modify groove structure in the tread so as to effectively prevent cracks that tend to occur at the groove bottoms of shoulder longitudinal grooves, thereby improving durability. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify the groove structure of Nishigami for these various advantages as is generally known in the tire tread art and taught by Koshio and Hashiba.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant has cited US 2009030514 (Niwa et al.) on the 02/27/2026 IDS; however, the examiner believes Applicant intended to cite Houjou et al. (US 20090308514), which has thus been added to the prior art made of record.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE (née AYALP) whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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 (née WHATLEY) 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. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
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.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749