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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 9/29/2026 have been accepted. Claims 1 and 13 are amended. Claim 14 is new. Claims 3-5 and 8-12 are canceled. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 13-14 are pending. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(d) rejection previously set forth.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JPH1160810A, of record), optionally in view of Tanaka (WO2021256123A1, of record) and optionally in view of Maruoka (US2004/0069392A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuda teaches a heavy-duty tire (title, “10”), wherein
A tread rubber has a cap layer (“12” and “14” in Fig. 1) and a base layer on an inner circumferential side of the cap (base rubber B “16” as in Fig. 1 is the radially innermost of the tread layers),
The cap layer comprises a cap surface layer (cap rubber layer “12”) and a cap intermediate layer (base rubber A “14”),
The cap surface layer has a larger tan δ by 0.06 or more than the cap intermediate layer at conditions of room temperature, amplitude of 2% and 50Hz (Matsuda teaches that the tan delta δ of the upper cap layer should be higher than the cap intermediate layer [see 0009-0010]. Matsuda further includes explicit test results with tan δ values within the claimed range. Translated Table 5 from the machine translation of Matsuda is provided below to facilitate discussion. Table 5 provides several examples of conditions of each of the three tread rubber layers. The tan δ values are taken at room temperature, dynamic strain 2%, and frequency of 52Hz, which are substantially the same as the tan δ conditions specified [0036]. In Example 1 of Table 5 for example, the cap rubber “12” have a tan δ of 0.28 and the base A rubber “14” has a tan δ of 0.18. Thus the cap rubber “12” which is outermost would be highest, and this is a difference of 0.10 which is within the claimed range. It is noted that Examples 2 and 3, as well as comparative example 2, satisfies the claimed range as well).
PNG
media_image1.png
558
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matsuda’s Fig. 1 shows that all three tread layers are present throughout the entire ground contact edges of the tire, where the ground contact edges are considered to be the radially outermost and two axial edges of the tread surface. Matsuda further shows that the rubber layers have a consistent thickness in comparison to each other throughout the axial direction of the tire, such that there is no significant gradient of one layer compared to another layer in the axial direction. As such, a volume of the rubber layers would reasonably correspond with the respective average thickness of the tread layers. Matsuda does not explicitly state that examples 1-3 or comparative example 2 have an average value of a ratio of a thickness of the cap surface layer to a thickness of the cap layer between ground contact edges of 60-85%. However, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to situate the tire of Matsuda as such. Matsuda explicitly suggests that the cap rubber layer (cap surface layer) may have a volume of 10-70% of the tread, and that the base rubber A (cap intermediate layer) may have a volume of 10-70% of the tread [0029]. Depending on the exact volumes chosen, there would be numerous embodiments within each of these suggested ranges of Matsuda that satisfy the claimed range. For example, a volume of 40% of the upper layer and 20% of the intermediate layer, well within the suggested ranges of Matsuda, would suggest a ratio of 66%, within the claimed range. Further, Matsuda suggests that different ratios for each of its rubber layers includes a ratio such as 60/20/20 or the like [0030]. This suggestion would yield a cap surface layer of 60%, a base rubber A “14” is 20%, and a base rubber B “16” is 20%. Based upon this, the ratio of the cap surface layer to the entire cap layer would equal 60 / (60 + 20) = 75%. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to work within the suggested volume ranges of the cap layers as suggested by Matsuda, and/or would have found it obvious to apply the suggested volume ratio of 60/20/20 as suggested by Matsuda. One would have been motivated to modify Examples 1-3 or comparative example 2 to have such a ratio, as Matsuda explicitly gives these volume ratios as obvious alternatives to apply to its inventive tire, and because having the volume situated as such may improve the heat generation and hysteresis effects of the tread [0004, 0029-0031, 0039]. And as the thickness of each layer is substantially equal along the width of the tire (see Fig. 1), and because the grooves in the tread are shown to be through both of the cap layers (see Fig. 1), it would be reasonably considered that the volume ratios as suggested by Matsuda would be substantially the same as thickness ratios.
Optionally applied, Tanaka teaches a tire which may be for truck/bus tires (synonymous with heavy-duty tires) [pg. 15 of machine translation]. The tire may have a first rubber layer “2”, second layer “3”, and third layer “4” [pg. 3 of machine translation]. The thickness of the first layer t1 and the thickness of the second layer t2 may preferably have a ratio (t2/t1) from 0.4 to 5.0. This may be rearranged such that (t1/t2) ranges from 0.2 to 2.5. From these ratios, it may be easily mathematically arranged so as to calculate the ratio of the cap surface layer to the total cap layer thickness, such that (t1/(t1+t2)) = 0.17 to 0.71. The suggested ratios of the cap surface layer to the total cap layer thickness thus overlaps the claimed range of 60 to 85%. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the rubber layer thickness of Matsuda to have thicknesses as suggested by Tanaka. One would have been motivated to work within the suggested thickness ratios of the top two rubber layers so as to improve fuel efficiency performance and wet grip performance.
Modified Matsuda further suggests a tire wherein a thickness of the tread rubber at the ground contact edges is greater than a thickness at the equatorial plane (an annotated Fig. 1 of Matsuda is included below. The thickness of the tread at the shoulder increases at the ground contact edge compared to that at the center. From a simple observation of Fig. 1, the thickness at the outer edges is clearly greater than that of the equator thickness. To further show this, the center thickness is approximately 1.00 via a standard measurement, and that of the ground contact edges respectively measure 1.16 to 1.21, such that the ground contact edge thickness would be clearly greater. And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Based upon the figures of Matsuda, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the thickness at the ground contact edge were larger than that at the equator).
PNG
media_image2.png
171
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Optionally applied, Maruoka teaches a heavy-duty tire [title, Figs. 1-2]. The tire tread thickness Tc which is located at the tread equator, and a tread thickness Tb which is located at a position substantially close to the ground contact edge [see Fig. 2, 0011]. The tire has 4 belt plies, wherein the second belt ply has a width of substantially the entire width of the tread portion [0028], wherein the width may be 95% of the TW for example [0028]. The ratio of the outer tread thickness Tb taken at the outer axial position of the second belt ply to that at the equator Tc (Tb/Tc) is set from 0.95 to 1.10, wherein Tb and Tc are the tread thickness from the outer surface to the second belt ply in the radial direction. When the ratio is below 1, the shoulder tread thickness would be greater than that of the tread at the equator. And further, the tread thickness from the outer surface to the tire carcass is Kc at the tire equator and Kb at the axially outer end of the second belt ply [Fig. 5, 0012], wherein the ratio of Kb/Kc is preferably from 1.2 to 1.5 [0012], such that the shoulder tread thickness would be greater than that at a tire equator. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the tread thickness at the equator compared to that at the shoulders to correspond to that as suggested by Maruoka. One would have been motivated so as to balance the wear of the tire [Maruoka, 0045-0046], and one would have been motivated to have a second belt ply at the width suggested by Maruoka so as to ensure the hooping effect and enhancing the tread rigidity [0028]. And as the tread thickness in the shoulder region of the tire at the axial end of the second belt ply would be substantially close to the position of the ground contact edge, it would be reasonably expected that the thickness at the ground contact edge would similarly be greater than that at the equator (especially so in the case of Kb and Kc wherein the tread thickness is considerably greater than that of the equatorial tread thickness).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuda or modified Matsuda makes obvious a tire wherein tan δ of the base layer is lower by 0.03 or more than the cap intermediate layer (as in Table 5 of the machine translation, in example 1 for example, the base rubber A “14” may have a tanδ of 0.18 and the base rubber B “16” which is radially innermost may have a tan δ of 0.11. The base rubber B “16” would therefore be lower by 0.07, which is greater than the claimed 0.03 or more. It is noted that Examples 2 and 3 also show similar ranges that are greater than 0.03 or more as claimed. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claims 6-7, Matsuda makes obvious a tire wherein the cap surface layer, cap intermediate layer, and base layer each exist throughout an entire region between tire widthwise portion of the ground contact edges (as in Fig. 1, the ground contact edges are considered to be the 2 radially outermost points which are located on each respective axial outside of the tread surface. And as in Fig. 1, each of the tread layers is clearly present throughout the entire width of the tread between these points).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JPH1160810A, of record), optionally in view of Tanaka (WO2021256123A1, of record) and optionally in view of Maruoka (US2004/0069392A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Numata (US2007/0084533A1, of record).
Regarding claim 13, Matsuda states that the tire may include belts which are located below the tread rubber [0036], but Matsuda does not give further details of the belt positioning. Numata is tied to a heavy-duty tire [title], wherein below the tread rubbers is located belt layers “7” and a carcass “6” [Fig. 1]. The belt layer may comprise 4 belt plies [Fig. 1, 0024]. Of the belt plies, the second belt ply 7B has the maximum width, where it may range from 0.80 to 0.95 times the tread width TW [0025], and wherein the first and third belt plies would have a maximum width of 85-95% of the maximum width of the belt ply [0025].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the tire of Matsuda to include the belt layers as suggested by Numata. One would have been motivated so as to reinforce essentially the full width of the tread, so as to implement the hoop effect to prevent stress concentration from occurring at the axially outer ends of the belt plies [0025]. As the claim requires for a belt to be located outward of a point at 3/8 of the TW (wherein from the equator, this would be points covering 75% of the total tread width), and as Numata suggests that the belt layer may have a width from 0.80 to 0.95 times the TW, the belt as suggested by Numata would clearly have a width beyond the points required in the claim. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JPH1160810A, of record), optionally in view of Tanaka (WO2021256123A1, of record) and optionally in view of Maruoka (US2004/0069392A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka (WO2021256123A1, of record)
Regarding claim 14, Matsuda does not explicitly show a thickness of the cap intermediate layer being less than a thickness of the base layer. Tanaka teachesa tire which may be for truck/bus tires (synonymous with heavy-duty tires) [pg. 15 of machine translation]. The tire may have a first rubber layer “2”, second layer “3”, and third layer “4” [pg. 3 of machine translation]. Tanaka teaches that the ratio t3/t2 of the third layer to the thickness of the second layer is preferably from 0.2 to 3.0 to balance better exerting effects of the present disclosure of improved rigidity for wear resistance and hysteresis loss [pgs. 1-3 of machine translation]. When the ratio t3/t2 is greater than 1, the thickness of the intermediate layer would be less than that of the base layer. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It being noted that Applicant has not provided any showing of unexpected results nor criticality to the claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the rubber layer thickness of Matsuda to have thicknesses/ratio as suggested by Tanaka. One would have been motivated to work within the suggested thickness ratios of the intermediate and base layer so as to improve the wear/grip, and hysteresis effects of the tire [pgs. 1-3 of machine translation], and it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to work within the suggested thickness ratios as suggested by Tanaka and would have landed upon the claimed limitation without inventive effort.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pgs. 5-6 of the remarks filed 9/29/2026 that Matsuda does not suggest amended claim 1, as the rejection relies upon the figures wherein the figures are not cited to be of scale and do not discuss the thickness of the layers.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is held that guidance as provided by the figures is sufficient to enable public possession of an inventive concept. That is, an enabling picture may be used to reject claims directed to an article to include: anticipating claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125. In this case, Matsuda clearly depicts the tire with the tread layers wherein from a simple observation of Fig. 1 of Matsuda, it is evident that the tread thickness at the ground contact edge is greater than that at a tire equator because of the deepening contour of the layers at the shoulder region of the tire. The claims do not require any specific ratio between these regions, only a very general relationship of the thickness at the ground contact edge being greater than that at an equator. The annotated drawings are provided for Applicant’s benefit to further show the suggestions of the prior art, but no specific numbers or ratios between the shoulder and equator thicknesses are required nor relied upon.
Further, it is noted that Applicant is relying upon their own figures to suggest this added limitation to claim 1. See Remarks dated 6/10/2026, wherein the support for this original limitation is found “particularly in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2”. There is no explicit written suggestion in the written specification that the thickness at the ground contact edges is greater than a thickness at the tire equatorial plane; this limitation comes solely from the figures. If Applicant is truly arguing that the figures of Matsuda do not suggest this limitation because Matsuda does not have a written portion suggesting this limitation, then Applicant’s own limitations would also not be reasonably suggested by their own specification and these limitations would be considered new matter. Applicant is simultaneously utilizing the figures of their own application to add new limitations, while ALSO arguing that the figures of the prior art cannot be utilized to reject said limitations. Applicant argues that Matsuda does not state that its figures are to scale, while Applicant’s own figures are similarly not stated to be to scale and yet they are relying upon them for new limitations. Applicant’s arguments are highly contradictory with their previous limitations and actions (and also in the latest remarks herein, wherein the new limitation claim 14 is solely taken from the Figures [see Remarks 9/29/2026 pg. 4]). Based upon the current case history and prior art, the Examiner finds that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the Applicant’s figures reasonably suggest their amended claim limitations and that the prior art of Matsuda similarly reasonably suggests the thickness of the tread rubber at the ground contact edge being greater than that at the equatorial plane.
Applicant argues on pgs. 6-7 that Maruoka does not suggest the added limitation to claim 1. Applicant argues that Maruoka merely discloses the thickness close to the end of the belt and not the pair of ground contact edges.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding Maruoka, the second belt ply is stated to reinforce “substantially the entire width of the tread portion”, with the belt ply being .95 times the tread grounding width WT for example [0028] (such that a right most ground contact edge would be ~2.5%TW from the end of the belt ply), such that the thickness of the tread taken at the Tb position would be expected to be substantially close to that of the tire ground contact position, thus creating a prima facie case of obviousness. Applicant’s arguments are not convincing as to an expected difference in thickness between what the prior art of Maruoka suggests and that as claimed. In this case, the examiner has met the initial burden of clearly articulating why the claimed thickness at the tire widthwise position of the ground contact edge would be greater than that at the equatorial plane would have been obvious over the prior art references. If the applicant is able to furnish evidence which shows that these references could not be combined in the manner suggested, the examiner will consider such evidence. And as in Fig. 2 of Maruoka, the thickness of the tread only increases moving outwards, so if any minor differences were present between a thickness at the 2nd belt edge and that of the ground contact edge, it would be in the direction of the thickness being greater at these ground contact edges and not smaller.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the thickness to the second belt may not correlate to the tread thickness of the instant application, it is noted that Applicant has not provided any specific definition for “tread thickness” or how the thickness is to be measured of the tread thickness. The tread thickness may be considered to be measured from the tread surface down in the radial direction to the second belt as in Maruoka Tb/Tc, or it may be considered to be from the tread surface to the carcass as defined by Kb/Kc which also suggests the thickness being greater at a ground contact area. No manner of measurement has been required (nor is present in any capacity in the written specification), such that the limitation is considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Additionally, it is noted that Applicant has not provided any showing of criticality nor unexpected results for their argued limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
