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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-12, 16-18, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (WO 2017/204912, of record) and further in view of (a) Schlufter (EP 3235662, of record) and (b) Yoshizawa (JP 2013-184330, of record) and/or Dobashi (JP 2012-188040, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Thompson is directed to a tire construction comprising a tread layer or cap surface layer 12, a blended layer or cap intermediate layer 34, and a sub-tread portion or base rubber layer 32. Thompson further states that a hysteresis (represented by tan delta) of said cap surface layer is greater than a hysteresis of the base rubber layer as a function of using smaller natural rubber loadings and/or larger filler loadings in said cap surface layer, as compared to the base rubber layer (Paragraphs 66-68). Thompson further teaches that the cap intermediate layer can include greater natural rubber loadings and smaller filler loadings as compared to the cap surface layer and thus, hysteresis values in the cap surface layer would be greater than hysteresis values in the cap intermediate layer (Paragraphs 67 and 68).
While Thompson fails to specifically disclose a difference of 0.03 in hysteresis (tan delta) values, a fair reading of Thompson would be recognized as encompassing the broad difference in hysteresis values required by the claimed invention. This is particularly evident since the cap intermediate layer can comprise up to 80 weight percent of the composition associated with the base rubber layer (Paragraph 42), with the base rubber layer having a smaller hysteresis than the cap surface layer (Paragraph 66). Schlufter is further provided to evidence a general order of hysteresis differences associated with cap surface layers and cap intermediate layers, with differences as large as 0.095 (Paragraphs 32 and 33). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious form the cap surface layer and cap intermediate layer of Thompson with compositions that satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship (regarding the hysteresis or tan delta) absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results
Additionally, the tire of Thompson includes common tread grooves 24. In such an instance, though, the grooves of Thompson do not extend into a cap intermediate layer. It is extremely well known and conventional, though, that groove depths are not limited to a single arrangement and any number of groove depths are commonly used in tire treads having a multitude of tread layers. Yoshizawa (Figure 1b) and Dobashi (Figure 3) evidence the known use of groove depths that terminate within a cap intermediate layer. It is particularly noted that Yoshizawa even describes the alternative use of a design in which the grooves terminate in a cap intermediate layer (Figure 1b) and a design in which the grooves terminate in a cap surface layer (Figure 1a). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of groove depths in the tire of Thompson, including that required by the claimed invention, absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (consistent with known tread designs).
With further respect to claim 1, Figure 1 of Thompson generally teaches an increasing thickness of the cap surface layer when moving axially outward from an equatorial plane of the tire. This corresponds with a greater ratio between a thickness of the cap surface layer and a total thickness of the cap layer (combination of surface layer and intermediate layer) in regions axially beyond the ¼ points from the equatorial pane of the tire, as compared to a region between the ¼ points. See the modified figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
863
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Thompson fails to quantitatively disclose ratios in respective regions, the combination of the ratios suggested by the figures and the disclosure by Thompson that the cap intermediate layer can have a thickness between about 0.2 inches to about 1 inch (Paragraphs 41 and 65) suggests ratios that would satisfy the broad ranges of the claimed invention. It is further noted that Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed ratios (lack of comparative examples having non-inventive ratios). It is emphasized that the figures of Thompson generally depict a smaller thickness ratio in the region between ¼ points, as compared to regions axially beyond said ¼ points and such is directly analogous to the claimed relationship (surface layer thickness increases when moving axially outward from an equatorial plane of the tire).
Additionally, regarding claim 1, as detailed above, the base rubber of Thompson has a smaller tan delta value, as compared to the cap intermediate layer. In terms of the difference between tan delta values, Schlufter provides evidence of the general order of differences between cap intermediate layers and base rubber layers (Paragraphs 32-35). It is emphasized that layer 32 (claimed base layer) can have a significantly greater natural rubber loading and a significantly smaller filler loading, as compared to layer 34 (claimed cap intermediate layer) and such corresponds with greater tan delta values in the cap intermediate layer in relation to the base layer (both factors are described as contributing to the above noted tan delta relationship).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, Thompson states that the base layer can extend well beyond the belt edges (Paragraph 62) and in such an instance, respective layers of the tread would extend to a tire sidewall outer surface. This arrangement is consistent with well-known tread designs comprising multiple layers (see Figure 1b of Yoshizawa). It is evident that the cap intermediate layer and the base layer have substantially uniform thickness values (Paragraphs 62-65) and thus, when extending such uniform thickness layers to a side portion, a thickness of the cap surface layer would be considerably larger than either of the underlying tread layers (consistent with the thickness relationship at respective ends of the exemplary arrangement depicted in the figures).
With respect to claims 3-5, the claimed thickness ratio over the entire tread with (between tread edges) is encompassed by Thompson, especially in light of the figures of Thompson and the broad disclosure of thickness values for the cap intermediate layer (Paragraph 41). Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the broad range of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 8-12, 16, and 18, Thompson states that the base layer can extend well beyond the belt edges (Paragraph 62) and in such an instance, respective layers of the tread would extend to a tire sidewall outer surface. This arrangement is consistent with well-known tread designs comprising multiple layers (see Figure 1b of Yoshizawa).
With respect to claim 17, belts 28 and 30 extend almost the entirety of the distance between tread edges and such is seen to satisfy the claimed arrangement.
As to claim 19, the figures and disclosure of Thompson suggest a cap surface layer having a greater thickness, as compared to that of the cap intermediate layer, at the sidewall outer surface (emphasis on wide variety of thickness values of the cap intermediate layer in relation to the cap surface layer- Paragraph 41). Again, Thompson specifically teaches a tread design in which the base rubber layer extends well beyond the belt edges and such appears to correspond with a known design in which the tread layers are present at a tire sidewall outer surface.
Regarding claim 20, Figure 1 of Thompson depicts a curvature between the interface of a cap surface layer and a cap intermediate layer at a location that is slightly axially inward of respective tread edges and such a location would be well recognized as being axially beyond 3/8 points.
With respect to claim 21, Thompson further states that a base layer has a thickness between 0.1 inches and 0.5 inches and a cap intermediate layer has a thickness between 0.2 inches and 1 inch. This disclosure is seen to encompass arrangements in which the base layer thickness is greater than a cap intermediate layer thickness and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed relationship. Again, the tire of Thompson necessarily has a thickness relationship when the layers extend considerably beyond the belt edges, as suggested by Thompson, and the claimed relationship is consistent with the general disclosure of Thompson. For example, when a cap intermediate layer thickness if 0.2 inches, any thickness greater than 0.2 inches and as high as 0.5 inches would satisfy the claimed invention (essentially 75% of the thickness values for the base layer would satisfy the claimed invention).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed July 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the loss factor is not based merely on the amount of filler. The Examiner agrees. As detailed in the rejection above, Thompson specifically identifies smaller natural loadings and larger filler loadings as contributing to greater loss factors. More particularly, Thompson states that the cap intermediate layer can have smaller natural rubber loadings and greater filler loadings, as compared to the base layer. Thus, Thompson identifies 2 features or characteristics that would result in larger tan delta or loss factor values in the cap intermediate layer, as compared to the base layer. A fair reading of Thompson suggests greater loss factor values without limitation in regards to an actual difference in values, with a loss factor of the cap intermediate layer being presumably closer to that of the cap surface layer as opposed to the base layer (since up to 80% of the intermediate layer can be defined by the cap surface layer). Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of differences in loss factor values, including that required by the claimed invention (greater differences in natural rubber loadings and filler loadings would result in greater loss factor differences). Schlufter is simply provided to evidence the general order of loss factor differences in tire tread layers.
Applicant contends that the conclusion that the intermediate layer’s tan delta is greater than the base layer’s tab delta is an unfounded assumption and is not derived from the text of Thompson. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the previous paragraph, the cap intermediate layer can be a mixture of compositions defining the cap surface layer and the base layer, with up to 80% being the cap surface layer. Thus, there is a clear teaching to form the cap intermediate layer with a greater than delta or loss factor as compared to the base layer.
Applicant contends that the passage of Thompson in regards to the axial extension of the base layer does not provide information about the cap intermediate layer. As is consistent with common tread designs, it is well known and conventional to provide all tread layers at the tire side portions. This is evidenced by Yoshizawa. A fair reading of Thompson would not suggest the exclusive extension of the base layer to a tire side portion (inconsistent with common tread design).
Applicant contends that it is clearly visible in Yoshizawa that the thickness of the intermediate layer is significantly larger than the outermost surface layer. The pending rejection, though, involves the modification of Thompson with Yoshizawa. The tire of Thompson is clearly defined by a cap surface layer having a considerably greater thickness than either the cap intermediate layer of the base layer. Yoshizawa is simply provided to evidence a common extension of tread layers to tire side portions as is taught by Thompson.
Regarding new claim 21, see the newly provided rejection above.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights