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 .
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on October 16, 2025. These drawings are approved.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitarai (JP2017-121911; machine translation relied upon) in view of Trif (US Pub. No. 2024/0417529; previously cited), Hata (US Pub. No. 2020/0122510), and Aoki (WO2022/181443; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2024/0123771 relied upon).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 7, Mitarai teaches a tire with a main layer 44 (claimed inner liner) and a tie layer 46 (claimed insulation) formed of a second rubber composition where the loss tangent of the second composition is smaller than the loss tangent of the main layer, the insulation is composed of a rubber composition which can comprise carbon black (machine translation at pages 5-6; figures 1-2), as well as teaching a specific embodiment for a tire sized 225/60R18 with a tie layer having a thickness of 1.0 mm (machine translation at page 10) and teaching or suggesting that the insulation and inner liner have a similar thickness at the equatorial plane (see figures 1-2). Mitarai does not specifically disclose using a recovered carbon black. Trif teaches using a rubber composition comprising a recovered carbon black (paragraphs [0005] and [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a recovered carbon black as taught by Trif in the composition of the tire of Mitarai as a more environmentally friendly source of carbon black (see Trif at paragraph [0004]). Mitarai teaches that the inner liner has excellent air shielding properties (machine translation at page 5, first full paragraph), but does not specifically disclose the air permeation coefficient of the inner liner rubber composition. Hata teaches using an inner liner with an air permeability coefficient of 100x10-12 cc · cm/(cm2 · sec · cmHg) or less (equivalent to 10x10-11 cc · cm/(cm2 · sec · cmHg) or less, such a range being completely encompassed by the ranges of claims 1 and 3) (paragraph [0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an air permeability coefficient as taught by Hata in the tire of Mitarai (combined) as a preferable range for air permeability coefficient of an inner liner in a tire (see Hata at paragraph [0068]). As was set forth above, Mitarai teaches that the loss tangent of the insulation is smaller than the loss tangent of the inner liner, but Mitarai does not specifically disclose the loss tangent of a complex of the insulation and inner liner. Aoki teaches using a range for the 70 degree C tan delta of the inner liner of preferably 0.26 or less (paragraph [0124]), with specific embodiments having 70 degree C tan delta of 0.26, 0.24, and 0.20 (see table 1, embodiments R2 and R5-R8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range of the 70 degree C tan delta of the inner liner as taught by Aoki in the tire of Mitarai (combined) as a preferable 70 degree C tan delta of an inner liner in a tire. Accordingly, using a 70 degree C tan delta of the inner liner of 0.26 or less, and a 70 degree C tan delta of the insulation of less than 0.26 or less, would result in a complex of the insulation and inner liner having a 70 degree C tan delta overlapping the ranges of 0.22 or less as claimed in claim 1 and from 0.20 to 0.22 as claimed in claim 7.
Regarding claim 4, Mitarai teaches using diene rubber in the insulation, preferably 60% by mass or more, particularly preferably 80% by mass or more, where the diene rubber can be isoprene rubber (machine translation at page 6, first two paragraphs), overlapping the claimed range, and that the main component of the rubber of the inner liner is butyl rubber, and the amount of the butyl rubber is particularly preferably 80% by mass or more (machine translation at page 5, first four full paragraphs), completely encompassed by the claimed range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 5, Trif teaches a specific embodiment using a recovered carbon black having an
STSA of 56 m2/g and 18.5% ash by weight (paragraph [0041]), these values falling within the claimed
ranges.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Mitarai teaches using diene rubber in the insulation, where the diene rubber can be two or more rubbers, preferably 60% by mass or more of diene rubber, particularly preferably 80% by mass or more, where the diene rubber can be isoprene rubber and/or styrene butadiene rubber (machine translation at page 6, first two paragraphs), resulting in embodiments overlapping the claimed ranges. Regarding claim 8, the loss tangent of the complex is met for the reason set forth above with respect to claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mitarai as is set forth above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 5, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights