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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bijaoui (US 20120298271) in view of Baranger (US 20210146728) and Ozel (US 20040261926).
Regarding claim 1, Bijaoui discloses a radial tire for a mining vehicle, intended to be mounted on a rim having a rim diameter at least equal to 24 inches and to bear a nominal load at least equal to 8000 kg (Bijaoui discloses tire with size of 37.00R57 [0045]; heavy load construction tires, [0001]; Examiner takes Official Notice that such tires have load capacities well above 8000 kg), comprising:
a tread intended to come into contact with the ground via a tread surface and connected by two sidewalls to two beads intended to come into contact with the rim (see Fig. 5 with tread band 10, sidewalls 40; beads contacting rim, [0007])),
a crown reinforcement, radially on the inside of the tread, comprising crown layers comprising metallic reinforcers (see crown structure 200; although, the reinforcers are not disclosed as metallic, 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 them as metallic since Examiner notes that steel cords are extremely common and conventional material for reinforcing tire belts, for example, see Baranger, [0090]),
a median plane (M), which is perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the tire, passes through the middle of the tread, and has intersection points with the tread surface that are at a mean distance from the axis of rotation of the tire equal to Rm (see median plane X-X' in Fig. 2),
the tread having an axial width (W) and having, in the median plane (M), a radial thickness (E), defined as the radial distance from the radially outermost point of the radially outermost crown layer to the tread surface, the radial thickness E of the tread being at least equal to 0.04*Rm (Bijaoui discloses a 37.00R57 tire [0045] and 98mm thick thread band, [0048], this tire size equates to a tire radius of about 66 inches, ( (37.00 x 2 + 57)/2) and tread thickness/Rm ratio of about 0.06),
the tread comprising at least a first rubber composition and a second rubber composition, making up at least 90% of the thickness (E) of the tread (M3 corresponds to first rubber, M1 corresponds to second rubber; said rubber compositions constituting the tread thickness; [0037-0039]), and
the first rubber composition being radially on the inside of the second rubber composition (see [0039]; Fig. 2).
As to the second rubber composition having a secant tensile modulus E10_2, measured at 10% strain and at a temperature of 23°C, at least equal to 5.2 MPa, 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 secant modulus of second rubber composition as at least equal to 5.2 MPa, since Bijaoui discloses the secant modulus of the first material M1 (corresponds to claimed second rubber composition) is at least 4.0 MPa ([0037]), said range overlapping the claimed range.
As to the first rubber composition making up at least 40% and at most 66% of the thickness (E) of the tread, Bijaou discloses the tread band as having a first material that is 20% to 80% of the depth of the grooves with the third material having a depth equal to the remainder of the tread depth ([0010]). Bijaoui discloses an example tread thickness of 98 mm and transverse groove depth of 75 mm ([0048-0049]). Given the example groove and tread dimensions, Bijaoui's teaching regarding a first material depth P1 yields a first material depth P1 to tread thickness range of 15% to 61% and third material to tread thickness range of 39% to 85%. 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 thickness as claimed in view of Bijaoui's disclosure regarding the tread band as having a first material that is 20% to 80% of the depth of the grooves with the third material having a depth equal to the remainder of the tread depth ([0010]) and the example tread dimensions ([0048-0049]).
Bijaoui does not disclose the elongation at break at 100°C of the first rubber composition; however, 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 elongation at break as at least 500% since Baranger, similarly directed towards a heavy duty tire, teaches a tread formed of at least two layers wherein the radially inner layer is provided with a breaking elongation of more than 600% at a temperature of 60C to enable greater distances to be reached before retread ([0054,0063]; the measurement temperatures are sufficiently close that one would expect similar elongation at break at 100C).
As to the maximum dynamic loss tanδ of said first rubber composition, Bijaoui discloses the third material (corresponds to first rubber composition) as having a very low hysteresis with tanδ of lower than 0.12 to reduce operating temperature of the tire ([0015,0023]).
Bijaoui and Baranger do not expressly disclose the reinforcing filler content of the layers; however, 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 layers with filler content as claimed since Ozel, similarly directed towards a heavy duty tire with cap/base layers, teaches typical additions of reinforcing fillers to the tread cap and base are usually in amount of about 25 to 50 phr wherein the tread cap can contain about 25-45phr carbon black and about 9 to 25 phr of silica while the base can contain 25 to 35 phr of carbon black and 5 to 15 phr of silica ([0048]), said ranges overlapping the claimed ranges. As to the total proportion by weight of the second rubber composition (cap) being greater than that of the first rubber composition (base), Ozel discloses higher ranges of carbon black and silica in the cap vs the base ([0048]). One would have been motivated to provide reinforcement fillers to obtain chip/chunk resistance and obtain higher stiffness in the cap than that of the base ([0031,0041]).
Regarding claim 2, as to the first rubber composition making up at least 45% and at most 60% of the thickness (E) of the tread, 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 thickness as claimed since Bijaoui discloses the tread band as having a first material that is 20% to 80% of the depth of the grooves with the third material having a depth equal to the remainder of the tread depth ([0010]), said range overlapping the claimed range (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Ozel discloses silica and carbon black fillers ([0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Baranger discloses a breaking elongation of more than 600% to enable greater distances to be reached before retread ([0054,0063]).
Regarding claim 7, 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 second rubber composition with reinforcing filler at least equal to 40 phr since Ozel teaches typical additions of reinforcing fillers to the tread cap and base are usually in amount of about 25 to 50 phr wherein the tread cap can contain about 25-45 phr carbon black and about 9 to 25 phr of silica ([0048]), said ranges overlapping the claimed ranges. One would have been motivated to provide reinforcement fillers to obtain chip/chunk resistance and obtain higher stiffness in the cap than that of the base ([0031,0041]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bijaoui (US 20120298271) in view of Baranger (US 20210146728) and Ozel (US 20040261926) as applied to claim 1 above, and as evidenced by Globus (Carbon black NPL) and ASTM (Standard Classification System for Carbon Blacks Used in Rubber Products NPL).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Ozel discloses the carbon black as SAF black ([0048]) but does not expressly disclose the STSA or COAN number of the carbon black. As evidenced by Globus, SAF carbon blacks include N100 series carbon blacks such as N120 and N134 carbon blacks which Globus describes as having applications in OTR tires and tire treads. As to the STSA and COAN numbers, the ASTM NPL lists N100 series as generally having STSA values above 100 m2/g and between 70 and 140 m2/g and COAN numbers of between 89 and 117 ml/100g, with N120 having STSA of 113 m2/g and COAN of 98 ml/100g and N134 having STSA of 134 m2/g and COAN of 102 ml/100g (Examiner notes that DBP compressed sample is the compressed oil absorption number, COAN, and 10-5 m3/kg = ml/100g). 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 tread rubber with carbon black STSA and COAN as claimed since Ozel discloses SAF blacks ([0048]) and as evidenced by Globus and ASTM NPLs, such carbon blacks satisfy the claimed properties.
As to the oil and resin content for claim 6, 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 rubber with oil and resin content as claimed since Ozel discloses typical amounts of processing aids includes 1 to 30 phr of processing oils and typical amounts of resin include 0.5 to 10 phr of tackifier resins ([0049]). One would have been motivated to employ conventional additives known to facilitate the manufacture of tires.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bijaoui (US 20120298271) in view of Baranger (US 20210146728) and Ozel (US 20040261926) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nugier (WO 2019/058084, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Bijaoui does not disclose a tread having two narrow grooves with zigzagging shape having wavelength, amplitude, and void ratio as claimed. In the same field of endeavor of heavy duty tires, Nugier discloses a tread having two narrow grooves (4, 5) with zigzag shape of wavelength L and amplitude A, the wavelength L being between 10% and 120% of the axial width of the tread and the amplitude A being 10 to 75% of the axial width abstract). As to the void ratio, Nugier discloses the tread as having width 680mm and thickness of 110 mm ([0056]) while the narrow grooves have width of 7 mm and depth of 70 mm ([0078])--which equates to a void ratio of about 0.7% ((7*70*circumference)/(680*110*circumference)). Further, Nugier discloses the groove widths as sufficiently small to allow the walls to contact within the contact patch with groove width being less than 15% of the groove depth ([0078]). 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 tread of Bijaoui with zigzagging narrow grooves as claimed since Nugier discloses a heavy duty tire having zigzagging narrow grooves and low void ratio to provide thick treads with thermal ventilation, increase the rolling speed limit, and ensure protection of the tread against attacks suffered during rolling ([0023]).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Nugier discloses a groove depth of 20 to 90% of the tread thickness ([0033]).
Regarding claim 10, Nugier discloses bridges ([0041]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the use of specific numbers from a reference that appear to fit a claimed dimensional relationship does not constitute a valid rejection of that relationship, particularly where, as here, the relationship is set forth in an equation which is not taught in the reference.
Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 recites the first rubber composition as 40% to 66% of the thickness of the tread. Bijaoui discloses a tread comprising a radially outer first rubber material M1 and radially inner third rubber material M3 and describes the first material's thickness as 20% to 80% of the mean depth P of the transverse grooves formed in the tread thickness ([0010]). Because the transverse grooves extend into the thickness of the tread, the first and third materials inherently make up a percentage of the thickness of the tread. In practicing the invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would have obviously looked toward the disclosure of Bijaoui for guidance regarding tread thickness and transverse groove depth. Bijaoui provides example dimensions that, given the 20% to 80% range for the first material thickness, yield a first material depth P1 to tread thickness range of 15% to 61% and third material to tread thickness range of 39% to 85%--this range overlapping the claimed range. Although Bijaoui does not expressly disclose the composition thicknesses in terms of tread depth, Bijaoui provides sufficient guidance to a person having ordinary skill in the art regarding thickness ranges and tread/groove dimensions so as to suggest a range of first rubber composition thicknesses relative to the total tread thickness that render the claimed range obvious.
Applicant argues that a tread depth of 98 mm, but mean groove depth P of only 40 mm, would yield a first composition depth P1 of 10-32% of the tread depth.
Examiner finds the example unpersuasive. Bijaoui does not disclose a mean groove depth of 40 mm. Instead, Bijaoui discloses an example mean groove depth of 75 mm ([0049]).
Applicant argues that Barranger teaches a tire for use on smooth surfaces such as paved roads and tread patterns for water drainage. Applicant argues the instant claimed tread is for mining vehicles and has different performance criteria.
In response to applicant's argument that Barranger is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Barranger is similarly directed towards a tire designed to carry heavy loads ([0001,0017]). Barranger discloses that it is advantageous for the inner rubber layer to have a high breaking elongation to resist damage from penetration by stones and objects and to prolong tire life ([0063]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized heavy load tires for use in mines encounter stones and objects that can damage the tread band (see Bijaoui, [0004]) and would have been motivated to employ a high breaking elongation to resist damage as taught by Barranger ([0063]).
Regarding Ozel, Applicant argues that the specific ranges taught by Ozel do not teach the claim 1 limitation that the total proportion by weight of reinforcing fillers of the second rubber composition (tread cap) is greater than the total proportion by weight of reinforcing fillers of the first rubber composition (tread base). Applicant argues that while some combinations of the ranges listed by Ozel would meet the claim language, some would not.
Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive. Ozel discloses reinforcing filler loading amounts for a tread cap and tread base wherein the range for fillers in the cap includes values greater than the range of fillers for the base ([0048]). In particular, Ozel discloses the cap may contain from about 25 to about 45 phr of carbon black whereas the base may contain from about 25 to about 35 phr of carbon black ([0048]). Employing carbon black in amounts >35 phr to 45 phr in the cap, which represents half the range for the cap loading amount, would result in the cap having greater amount of carbon black filler than the base which is 25 to 35 phr. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2123. Here, Ozel's disclosure of filler ranges having higher upper bounds in the cap suggests cap compositions that contain a greater amount of filler than base compositions. It is not necessary that all combinations in Ozel meet the claim language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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