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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 12, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (WO 2017/204912, newly cited) 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, newly cited).
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).
Lastly, regarding 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
826
644
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).
Regarding claim 2, 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).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 April 8, 2026