Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/858,712

TYRE FOR VEHICLE WHEELS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 21, 2024
Examiner
DYE, ROBERT C
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Pirelli Tyre S P A
OA Round
2 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
498 granted / 787 resolved
+11.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
837
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
55.2%
+15.2% vs TC avg
§102
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 787 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 11-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giannini (US 2020/0299482) in view of Branan (US 5124396). Regarding claim 11, Giannini discloses a tire for vehicle wheels comprising: at least one structural component comprising a vulcanized elastomeric compound ([0037,0148,0209], Fig. 9), wherein the vulcanized elastomeric compound comprises, before vulcanization, a vulcanizable elastomeric compound made by blending an elastomeric composition comprising (i) at least one diene elastomeric polymer ([0148-0149]), and (ii) a reinforcing filler comprising (a) needle-shaped morphology silicate fibres of a nanometric size ([0024-0026]), and (b) finely dispersed carbon black (Giannini discloses standard reinforcing filler that is preferably carbon black having surface area not smaller than 20m2/g, ([0151,0182]) and (c) optionally, conventional silica (Giannini discloses microbeads including silica, [0025]). Giannini discloses carbon black having surface area not smaller than 20m2/g ([0182]) but does not expressly disclose carbon black having a nitrogen surface area (NSA) determined in accordance with ISO 18852:2005 greater than 100 m2/g and smaller than 200 m2/g and a surface area OAN (Oil Absorption Number) determined according to ISO 4656:2012 greater than 100ml/100 g and smaller than 150ml/100g. In the same field of endeavor of tire rubber reinforcements, Branan discloses improved treadwear/hysteresis carbon black that impart greater abrasion resistance and lower hysteresis to improve tread wear, lower heat build-up and provide better fuel economy characteristics (col 2, lines 56-68). Branan discloses the carbon black as having nitrogen adsorption specific surface area (N2SA) as 120-180 m2/g and the DBP oil absorption number of 110 to 145 ml/100g (col 1, lines 56-68; see Table at col 8, lines 47+, where examples 1-4 have NSA and DBP oil absorption values within the claimed ranges). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tire of Giannini with carbon black having NSA and OAN values within the claimed range since Branan discloses carbon black having NSA values of 120 to 180 mg2/g and DBP oil absorption number of 110 to 145 ml/100g as having greater abrasion resistance, reduced heat generation, and better fuel economy (col 1, lines 56-68; col 2, lines 56-68; see working examples in Table of col 8). Regarding claim 12, Giannini discloses for 100 phr of elastomer; 2-110phr of microbeads (with microbeads being present to preferably provide 27phr to 40 phr of fibers ([0168]); 1-120phr, preferably 20-90 phr, of standard reinforcing filler (preferably carbon black, [0182-183]); 0.1 to 12 phr of vulcanizing agent; and 0.1 to 18 phr of coupling agent ([0148-0153]). Giannini discloses silica present in the microbeads at 0.5:1 to 15:1 weight ratio to the fibers, preferably 1:1 ([0024-0026,0088]). Giannini discloses an example formulation in Table 2 as well where silica is provided at 1:1 ratio with the silica fibers to yield 16 phr of silica. While Giannini does not expressly disclose an anticipatory example, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the elastomeric composition as claimed since (1) Giannini discloses the components in amounts that overlap the claimed ranges (see above); and (2) Branan discloses carbon black having NSA values of 120 to 180 mg2/g and DBP oil absorption number of 110 to 145 ml/100g as having greater abrasion resistance, reduced heat generation, and better fuel economy (col 1, lines 56-68; col 2, lines 56-68; see working examples in Table of col 8). Regarding claim 13, Giannini discloses magnesium silicate, aluminum silicate, and calcium silicate fibers ([0073]). Regarding claim 14, Giannini discloses the recited fibers types (see [0075]). Regarding claims 15-19, Giannini discloses microbeads comprising silicate fibers and silica with diameter of 50-500 microns and weight ratio of 0.7:1 to 10:1([0024-0029,0047,0051], claim 26). As to claims 15-17, Examiner notes that the addition via masterbatch is recited as optional (also recited as admitted prior art in pg 2 of the specification). Additionally, Examiner notes that claim 15 relates to the method in which the composition is prepared. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113. Regarding claim 20, Giannini discloses an elastomeric composition comprising: 100 phr of elastomer; 2-110phr of microbeads (with microbeads being present to preferably provide 27phr to 40 phr of fibers ([0168]); 0-110phr, preferably 20-90 phr, of standard reinforcing filler (preferably carbon black, [0148,0182-183]); 0.1 to 12 phr of vulcanizing agent; and 0.1 to 18 phr of coupling agent ([0148-0153]). Giannini discloses silica present in the microbeads at 0.5:1 to 15:1 weight ratio to the fibers, preferably 1:1 ([0024-0026,0088]). Giannini discloses an example formulation in Table 2 as well where silica is provided at 1:1 ratio with the silica fibers to yield 16 phr of silica. Giannini discloses carbon black having surface area not smaller than 20m2/g ([0182]) but does not expressly disclose carbon black having a nitrogen surface area (NSA) determined in accordance with ISO 18852:2005 greater than 100 m2/g and smaller than 200 m2/g and a surface area OAN (Oil Absorption Number) determined according to ISO 4656:2012 greater than 100ml/100 g and smaller than 150ml/100g. In the same field of endeavor of tire rubber reinforcements, Branan discloses improved treadwear/hysteresis carbon black that impart greater abrasion resistance and lower hysteresis to improve tread wear, lower heat build-up and provide better fuel economy characteristics (col 2, lines 56-68). Branan discloses the carbon black as having nitrogen adsorption specific surface area (N2SA) as 120-180 m2/g and the DBP oil absorption number of 110 to 145 ml/100g (col 1, lines 56-68; see Table at col 8, lines 47+, where examples 1-4 have NSA and DBP oil absorption values within the claimed ranges). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tire of Giannini with carbon black having NSA and OAN values within the claimed range since Branan discloses carbon black having NSA values of 120 to 180 mg2/g and DBP oil absorption number of 110 to 145 ml/100g as having greater abrasion resistance, reduced heat generation, and better fuel economy (col 1, lines 56-68; col 2, lines 56-68; see working examples in Table of col 8). Regarding claims 21 and 22, Giannini discloses the microbeads being present to preferably provide 27phr to 40 phr of fibers ([0168]). Regarding claims 23, Giannini discloses microbeads with diameters of 70 to 300 microns ([0051]). Regarding claims 24-26, Giannini discloses the recited weight ratios ([0096, 00088]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-26 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments regarding Ishimoto are moot because new grounds of rejection have been made based on Giannini in view of Branan. Applicant argues that the composition shows unexpected improvements resulting from compositions with carbon black having both a nitrogen surface area and oil absorption number within the claimed range. Applicant argues the unexpected results demonstrated within the specification demonstrate the claimed ranges are critical. Examiner disagrees. Branan specifically teaches the use of carbon black having a combination of nitrogen surface area and DBP oil absorption numbers that are inside the claimed ranges (col 1, lines 56-68; also see working examples in Table of col 8). Branan discloses the carbon black imparts improved tread wear and hysteresis (affects rolling resistance/heat buildup; col 2, lines 56-68). While the references do not discuss an improvement in the Payne effect, 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). As to the evidence of unexpected results, Branan teaches carbon black having NSA and DBP that anticipate the claimed ranges. Examiner also notes that 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). Here, Applicant has not provided sufficient tests inside and outside the claimed range. The compositions of Table 2 do not contain any comparative carbon blacks having NSA or OAN number greater than the claimed ranges to establish criticality of the upper limits. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakai (US 5100637) discloses tire tread rubber having carbon black with NSA of 120-165 m2/g and DBP absorption of at least 120 ml/100g (working examples all within 100-150 ml/100g, Table II). Itoh (US 4871794) discloses tire tread rubber having carbon black with NSA of 110-190 m2/g and DBP absorption of 100-140 ml/100g (col 3, lines 3-11). Ahmad (US 4703079) discloses a tire tread rubber having carbon black with NSA of 140-160 m2/g and DBP absorption of 120-140 ml/100g (abstract). Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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. /ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 21, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 22, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594790
TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576674
PNEUMATIC TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558922
TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12545058
A VEHICLE WHEEL TYRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539720
UTILITY-VEHICLE TYRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+10.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 787 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month