Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/867,444

RUBBER COMPOSITION FOR TIRES AND TIRE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 20, 2024
Examiner
DYE, ROBERT C
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Bridgestone Corporation
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 1, 2, 8-12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida (JP2018-123260, of record, with English machine translation). Regarding claim 1, Tsuchida discloses a rubber composition for tires ([0006]) comprising: a rubber component ([0051-0054]); a fatty acid amide ([0081,0084]); and a liquid polymer ([0075-0080]). As to a polystyrene-equivalent weight average molecular weight measured by gel permeation chromatography of 5,000 or more and less than 40,000, Tsuchida discloses the liquid polymer as having a weight average molecular weight measured by gel permeation chromatography of 1x103 to 2.0x105, preferably 3000 to 15000 ([0076]), said range overlapping the claimed range. Tsuchida also discloses example liquid polymers having molecular weights of 4500 and 8500 ([0139]). Tuschida does not expressly disclose a working example having both fatty acid amide and a liquid polymer with MW within the claimed range; 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 rubber composition with fatty acid amide and liquid polymer having MW within the claimed range since Tsuchida discloses fatty acid amide as a processing aid ([0081,0084]) and liquid polymer having 3000 to 15000 molecular weight ([0075-0080]), said range overlapping the claimed range. Regarding claim 2, Tsuchida discloses the fatty acid processing aid is preferably present at 0.5 to 10 phr ([0086]). Regarding claims 8 and 20, Tsuchida discloses liquid butadiene polymer ([0077]). Regarding claim 9, Tsuchida discloses preferably 10 to 25 phr of liquid polymer ([0080]). Regarding claim 10, Tsuchida discloses 0.5 to 10 phr of fatty acid amide ([0086]) and 10 to 25 phr of liquid polymer ([0080]). 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 liquid polymer to fatty acid amide mass ratio of 1 to 10 since the amounts disclosed by Tsuchida yields a ratio range of 1 to 50, said range overlapping the claimed range. Regarding claims 11 and 12, Tsuchida discloses natural rubber ([0054, 0094]) and modified conjugated diene-based polymer with functional groups ([0052-0054]). Regarding claim 17, Tsuchida discloses the composition can be used in a tire tread ([0136]). Claims 3, 4, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida (JP2018-123260, with English machine translation) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Kondo (JP2017-101208, of record, with English machine translation). Regarding claims 3, 4, and 18, Tsuchida discloses the fatty acid is not particularly limited, but does not expressly disclose a fatty acid bis amide or ethylene bis fatty acid amide. 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 provided a fatty acid bis amide or ethylene bis fatty acid amide since Kondo, similarly directed towards a tire rubber composition, teaches providing fatty acids in tread rubber compositions to provide water-repellent properties wherein bis amide is disclosed as a preferred type of amide and ethylene bis stearic acid amide, ethylene bis hydroxy acid amide, ethylene bis behenic acid amide are listed as examples ([0027-0030]). One would have motivated to select a bisamide because they form a water-repellent surface film by blooming, thereby more effectively suppressing snow clogging ([0029]). Claims 5-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida (JP2018-123260, with English machine translation) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Appel (US 2007/0135564). Regarding claims 5-7 and 19, Tsuchida discloses liquid polybutadiene as the liquid polymer but does not disclose the vinyl content. 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 employed polybutadiene with vinyl content as claimed since Appel, similarly directed towards tire rubber, teaches liquid polybutadiene with vinyl content of 15 to 50% to achieve good abrasion characteristics, good winter properties, and to reduce the amount of other softeners in the rubber ([0018]), said range overlapping the claimed ranges. Examiner notes that there is 0% styrene content in polybutadiene rubber. Claims 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida (JP2018-123260, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazaki (JPH09-194640, of record, with English machine translation). Regarding claims 13, 14, and 16, Tsuchida does not disclose a space-introducing agent or porosity of the rubber; 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 rubber composition with a space introducing agent and porosity since Tsuchida discloses providing foaming agents within the composition to generate closed gas cells within the rubber, thereby improving ice performance ([0006,0012,0013]). As to claim 16, 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 composition with porosity of 5 to 45% since Tsuchida discloses the foaming rate of the rubber matrix is preferably 5 to 35% to provide ice performance, fraction properties, and abrasion resistance, said range overlapping the claimed range. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida (JP2018-123260, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yokoyama (US 20180093533). Regarding claim 19, Tsuchida does not disclose composite fibers; 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 rubber composition with composite fibers since Yokoyama, similarly directed towards tire rubber compositions, teaches providing composite fiber to obtain good water drainage and sufficient durability ([0063,0072]). Conclusion 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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

Nov 20, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 02, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 19, 2025
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