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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “groove depth” in line 2 should be written as –a groove depth— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “groove width” in line 4 should be written as –a groove width— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “the end of the belt” in lines 2 and 3 is unclear. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes –the respective end of the belt—.
Regarding claim 4, the phrases “the four circumferential grooves” in line 2 and “the five land portions” in lines 2-3 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 5-6 are indefinite by dependence on claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, the phrases “the first reference side” in line 2, “the second reference side” in line 3, and “the width of the crown land portion” in line 5 lack sufficient antecedent basis. The examiner notes that such limitations were previously disclosed in claim 5, but claim 6 is dependent upon claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, the phrases “the loss tangent at 30oC of the base layer” in lines 1-2 and “the loss tangent at 70oC of the cap layer” in line 2 are unclear. It is unclear if these are new properties for the base and cap layers at different temperatures than claim 1, which then lack sufficient antecedent basis, or if they are typographical errors and instead should be written as –the loss tangent at 70oC of the base layer— and –the loss tangent at 30oC of the cap layer— for consistency in claim language with claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes either interpretation will satisfy the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “the end of the belt” in line 4 is unclear. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes –the respective end of the belt—.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (JP 2009119967, see machine translation), Dill et al. (EP 0341187), Higuchi (US 20220194133), and optionally Yasuo et al. (CN 101298227, see machine translation), Kunisawa et al. (EP 1632364), and Kobori (EP 3944967).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Terada discloses a tire comprising: a pair of beads (Fig. 1: 14), a carcass (Fig. 1: 16) extending on and between the pair of beads, a tread (Fig. 1: 24, 26) radially outward of the carcass, and a belt (Fig. 1: 18, see also 20, 22) between the tread and the carcass, wherein the tread includes: a base layer (Fig. 1: 26B), and a cap layer (Fig. 1: 26C) covering the entire base layer, a loss tangent of the base layer is lower than a loss tangent of the cap layer ([0006], [0011], [0032]), each end of the base layer (Fig. 1: 28B) is located axially inward of an end of the belt (Fig. 1: 18, see also 20, 22), the belt (Fig. 1: 18) includes an inner belt ply (Fig. 1: 18A) and an outer belt ply (Fig. 1: 18B, see also 20, 22) located radially outward of the inner belt ply, each end of the outer belt ply (Fig. 1: 18B, see also 20, 22) is located axially inward of an end of the inner belt ply (Fig. 1: 18A).
Although Terada discloses examples wherein the loss tangent is at 100oC ([0046]), rather than the loss tangent of the base layer is at 70°C and the loss tangent of the cap layer is at 30°C, Terada clearly teaches a relative relationship that the base layer is formulated to exhibit lower loss tangent than the cap layer for the purposes of suppressing heat generation and improved high speed durability ([0011], [0046]). Because Tereda discloses a compositional relationship that yields a lower loss tangent in one layer relative to another layer for reducing heat generation, and demonstrates a relationship at a given elevated temperature, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the same relative property relationship at other conventional testing temperatures, including 70°C and 30°C.
However, Tereda does not expressly recite the cap layer is harder than the base layer.
Dill discloses a tire tread having a cap layer (Fig. 2: 34; Fig. 3: 62; Fig. 5: 80; Fig. 6: 90) and a base layer (Fig. 2: 32; Fig. 3: 68; Fig. 5: 84; Fig. 6: 92), wherein the hardness of the base is believed to be less than the hardness of the cap (Col 4 lines 22-23). As a result the base is generally softer than the cap (Col. 4 lines 23-24). By varying the hardness of the base the ride may be improved (Col. 4 lines 24-25). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the cap and base layer tread of Terada in order to provide the cap layer is harder than the base layer so as to improve ride performance, as taught by Dill.
Terada further discloses a tire for a motorcycle ([0001]), but does not expressly recite the tread has a tread pattern including a plurality of circumferential grooves, thereby forming a plurality of land portions aligned in an axial direction in the tread, the plurality of land portions include, in a portion between an equator plane of the tire and an end of the tread, a crown land portion located on the equator plane side, a shoulder land portion located on the tread end side, and a middle land portion located between the crown land portion and the shoulder land portion, a proportion ARc of the cap layer occupying the crown land portion is represented as an average value of a ratio of a cap layer thickness to a base layer thickness in the crown land portion, a proportion ARm of the cap layer occupying the middle land portion is represented as an average value of a ratio of a cap layer thickness to a base layer thickness in the middle land portion, a proportion ARs of the cap layer occupying the shoulder land portion is represented as an average value of a ratio of a cap layer thickness to a base layer thickness in the shoulder land portion.
Higuchi also discloses a tire for a motorcycle ([0019]), the tire comprising a tread pattern including a plurality of circumferential grooves (Figs. 1-2: 4), thereby forming a plurality of land portions aligned in an axial direction in the tread (Figs. 1-2: see land portions between each groove), the plurality of land portions include, in a portion between an equator plane (Figs. 1-2: C) of the tire and an end of the tread (Figs. 1-2: Te), a crown land portion located on the equator plane side, a shoulder land portion located on the tread end side, and a middle land portion located between the crown land portion and the shoulder land portion (Figs. 1-2). In this manner, cornering power is improved, steering stability performance is improved, excellent wear resistance performance is maintained, and good drainage performance when running on wet road surfaces is achieved ([0012]-[0013], [0032]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Terada in order to provide a tread pattern including a plurality of circumferential grooves and a plurality of land portions aligned in an axial direction in the tread so as to improve corning power and steering stability performance, maintain excellent wear resistance performance, and achieve good drainage performance when running on wet road surfaces, as taught by Higuchi.
Optionally, Yasuo also discloses a tire for a motorcycle, the tire comprising a tread pattern including a plurality of circumferential grooves (Figs. 1, 3-5, 7, 12-16: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d), thereby forming a plurality of land portions aligned in an axial direction in the tread (Figs. 1, 3-5, 7, 12-16: see land portions between each groove), the plurality of land portions include, in a portion between an equator plane (Figs. 1, 3-5, 7, 12-16: 0) of the tire and an end of the tread, a crown land portion located on the equator plane side, a shoulder land portion located on the tread end side, and a middle land portion located between the crown land portion and the shoulder land portion (Figs. 1, 3-5, 7, 12-16). In this manner, resistance to slippage may be improved while tire nice is controlled ([0011], [0017]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Terada in order to provide a tread pattern including a plurality of circumferential grooves and a plurality of land portions aligned in an axial direction in the tread so as to improve resistance to slippage and control tire noise, as taught by Yasuo.
Accordingly, because Terada discloses a cap layer having a particular thickness (Fig. 1: 26C) and a base layer having a particular thickness (Fig. 1: 26B), and Higuchi and optionally Yasuo disclose providing the tire with a crown land portion, a middle land portion, and a shoulder land portion, the tire of modified Terada will necessarily have a proportion ARc of the cap layer occupying the crown land portion that is represented as an average value of a ratio of a cap layer thickness to a base layer thickness in the crown land portion, a proportion ARm of the cap layer occupying the middle land portion that is represented as an average value of a ratio of a cap layer thickness to a base layer thickness in the middle land portion, and a proportion ARs of the cap layer occupying the shoulder land portion that is represented as an average value of a ratio of a cap layer thickness to a base layer thickness in the shoulder land portion.
Terada further illustrates that the base layer is shorter in the axial direction than the cap layer and is tapered at the axial ends (Fig. 1). Terada further discloses that although a thicker base is more effective in suppressing heat generation, it is preferable to make the base rubber thinner that the tire equatorial plane side, and in some cases to not provide the base rubber on the tread end side at all ([0023]: the ends of the base layer may stop short of extending to the tread ends in the axial direction). In other words, the thickness of the base layer, and thereby the thickness of the corresponding cap layer, are result effective variables that affect the heat generation of the tread. While Terada does not explicitly disclose the value for the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion, the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion, or the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said cap layer proportions. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion, the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion, and the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion in order to effectively suppress heat generation.
Additionally, because modified Terada discloses the crown, middle, and land portions, and the base layer extends through the land portions with a generally uniform thickness until it tapers at the axial ends, the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion will necessarily be equal to or higher than the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion, and the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion will necessarily be higher than the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion.
Optionally, Kunisawa discloses a tire comprising: a pair of beads (Fig. 1: 1), a carcass (Fig. 1: 2) extending on and between the pair of beads, a tread (Fig. 1: 3) radially outward of the carcass, and a belt (Fig. 1: 4) between the tread and the carcass, wherein the tread includes: a base layer (Fig. 1: 5), and a cap layer (Fig. 1: 6) covering the entire base layer, each end of the base layer (Fig. 1: 5) is located axially inward of an end of the belt (Fig. 1: 4), the belt includes an inner belt ply and an outer belt ply located radially outward of the inner belt ply (Fig. 1: 4), each end of the outer belt ply is located axially inward of an end of the inner belt ply (Fig. 1: 4). Kunisawa further discloses that the ratio of the cap layer thickness to the base layer thickness (Fig. 1: TC/TB) is at least 0.45 ([0008]). The hardness of the cap layer, the loss tangent and thickness of the base layer, and the ratio of the thickness of the cap layer to the base layer are specified so as to prevent separation of the tread portion from the tire main body, as well as to improve grip performance and abrasion resistance ([0010]). In other words, not only is the ratio of the cap to base layer thickness a result effective variable that affects separation of the tread portion from the tire main body, grip performance, and abrasion resistance, but it is also specified as being at least 0.45, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion is not less than 1.5 and not greater than 3.5, the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion is equal to or higher than the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion, the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion is higher than the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion and not less than 5.0 and not greater than 9.5, the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion is not less than 2.0 and not greater than 3.0, and the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion is higher than the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion and not less than 7.0 and not greater than 9.0. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion, the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion, and the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion. Moreover, case law holds that it is obvious to vary result-effective variables, as discussed above. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Terada in order to provide the ratio of the cap layer thickness to the base layer thickness in the aforementioned ranges so as to prevent separation of the tread portion from the tire main body, as well as to improve grip performance and abrasion resistance, as taught by Kunisawa.
Optionally, Kobori discloses a tire comprising: a pair of beads (Fig. 1: 4, 5), a carcass (Fig. 1: 6) extending on and between the pair of beads, a tread (Fig. 1: 2, 10) radially outward of the carcass, and a belt (Fig. 1: 7) between the tread and the carcass, wherein the tread includes: a base layer (Fig. 1: 12), and a cap layer (Fig. 1: 11) covering the entire base layer, each end of the base layer (Fig. 1: 12) is located axially inward of an end of the belt (Fig. 1: 7), the belt includes an inner belt ply and an outer belt ply located radially outward of the inner belt ply (Fig. 1: 7A, 7B). Kobori further discloses the thickness of the base layer (Fig. 1: t1) is 30% to 70% the tread thickness (Fig. 1: T1) in the crown region and tapers down to reduce the thickness of the base layer (Fig. 1: ta) at various points (Fig. 1: P), such at equal to or less than 30% (Fig. 1: t3) of the tread thickness (Fig. 1: T3) ([0032]-[0035]). In other words, the ratio of the thickness of the cap layer to the base layer in the crown region is 0.43 to 2.33, and towards the axial ends is greater than 2.33, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion is not less than 1.5 and not greater than 3.5, and the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion is equal to or higher than the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion. Moreover, assuming the ends of the base layer extend to the shoulder land portions, the range of greater than 2.33 will also overlap with the claimed range of the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion is higher than the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion and not less than 5.0 and not greater than 9.5. Additionally, the aforementioned ranges will overlap with the claimed ranges of the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion is not less than 2.0 and not greater than 3.0, and the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion is higher than the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion and not less than 7.0 and not greater than 9.0. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion, the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion, and the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion. Providing the base layer thickness in such a manner affects the rigidity in the tread portion and thus the steering stability ([0029]-[0032]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Terada in order to provide the ratio of the cap layer thickness to the base layer thickness in the aforementioned ranges so as to provide sufficient rigidity and improve steering stability, as taught by Kobori.
Regarding claim 2, Tereda further discloses each end of the cap layer (Fig. 1: 26C) is located axially outward of the respective end of the belt (Fig. 1: 18A).
Regarding claims 7-8, Terada further discloses that the loss tangent of the base layer is smaller than the cap layer so that heat generation can be suppressed and high speed durability can be improved ([0011], [0046]). In other words, the loss tangent of the base and cap layers is considered to be a result effective variable that will affect heat generation and high speed durability of the tire. It is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for the loss tangent at 70°C of the base layer, the loss tangent at 30°C of the cap layer, and a ratio of the loss tangent at 70°C of the base layer to the loss tangent at 30°C of the cap layer. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the loss tangent at 70°C of the base layer, the loss tangent at 30°C of the cap layer, and a ratio of the loss tangent at 70°C of the base layer to the loss tangent at 30°C of the cap layer in order to effectively suppress heat generation and improve high speed durability.
Regarding claim 9, Terada further discloses the base layer (Fig. 1: 28B) is tapered outward in the axial direction. Moreover, as Higuchi discloses providing shoulder land portions, and Terada does not expressly recite how far the base layer extends, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to extend and taper the base layer into the shoulder land portions as a predictable structural configuration.
Regarding claim 11, Higuchi further discloses a common tire size of 255/65R18 ([0119]), wherein a nominal cross-sectional width is 255 mm, which falls within the claimed range of not less than 215 mm and not greater than 325 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the nominal cross-sectional width. Moreover, while Terada also discloses embodiments of test tire sizes of 190/55R17 ([0054]), this is merely a preferable example and does not explicitly limit the disclosure to such a limitation. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. It is also well settled that an applied reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art, including not only preferred embodiments, but less preferred and even non-preferred. See MPEP 2123. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to apply a common tire size as taught by Higuchi.
Furthermore, Higuchi discloses the “normal load” is a load specified for the tire by a standard included in a standardization system on which the tire is based, for example, the “maximum load capacity” in JATMA, maximum value listed in “TIRE LOAD LIMITS AT VARIOUS COLD INFLATION PRESSURES” table in TRA, and “LOAD CAPACITY” in ETRTO ([0038]). If there is no standardization system including standards on which the tire 1 is to be based, the “normal load” is a load specified by the tire manufacturer or the like ([0038]). Applicant’s specification similarly defines the load index (LI) ([0012]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select a load index (LI) of not less than 90 for evaluating the ground-contact surface of the tire taught by Higuchi as this constitutes routine selection and optimization of a known result-effective variable within conventional operating ranges.
Regarding claim 12, Higuchi further discloses a groove depth (Fig. 1: d) of each circumferential groove (Fig. 1: 4) is proportional to the ground contact lengths (Fig. 2: L) of the ground contact area at the respective axial positions of the grooves, and in this manner the groove depths can be prevented from becoming excessively large for the amount of wear which is different depending on the axial positions and the rigidity of the tread portion is improved to improve cornering power, and the steering stability is improved while maintaining excellent wear resistance performance ([0013], [0042]). In other words, the groove depth is a result effective variable that will affect the rigidity, cornering power, steering stability, and wear resistance. It is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for a groove depth of each circumferential groove. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the groove depth of each circumferential groove in order to improve tread rigidity, cornering power, steering stability, and wear resistance.
Although Terada does not address the groove widths, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the dimensions of the groove, including depth and width, would both affect drainage and wear resistance properties. Accordingly, while modified Terada does not explicitly disclose the value for a groove width of each circumferential groove, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said groove width. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the groove width of each circumferential groove in order to maintain excellent wear resistance performance.
Optionally, Yasuo further discloses examples wherein a groove depth of each circumferential groove is 8 mm ([0230]), which approaches the claimed range of not less than 5.0 mm and not greater than 7.5 mm, and a groove width of each circumferential groove is 8 mm, 9.6 mm, 7.2 mm, and 7.2 mm ([0230]), which all fall within the claimed range of not less than 5.0 mm and not greater than 20.0 mm. Case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect 8 mm to behave in substantially the same way as 7.5 mm. Moreover, Yasuo merely provides examples at 8 mm depth and does not expressly teach away from other values. Additionally, case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the groove widths and depths.
Regarding claims 13-14, Dill further discloses a hardness of the cap layer is from about 55 to about 75 (Col. 4 lines 26-29), which overlaps with the claimed range of not less than 60 and not greater than 70, and a hardness of the base layer is from about 45 to about 60 (Col. 4 lines 26-29), which overlaps with the claimed range of not less than 50 and not greater than 65. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the hardness of the cap layer and the base layer.
Accordingly, a difference between a hardness of the cap layer and a hardness of the base layer is 10 to 30, which overlaps with the claimed range of not less than 10 and not greater than 20. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a difference between a hardness of the cap layer and a hardness of the base layer.
Regarding claim 15, Terada further discloses each end of the cap layer (Fig. 1: 26C) is axially outward of the end of the belt (Fig. 1: 18A).
Regarding claim 16, Terada discloses a tire comprising: a pair of beads (Fig. 1: 14), a carcass (Fig. 1: 16) extending on and between the pair of beads, a tread (Fig. 1: 24, 26) radially outward of the carcass, and a belt (Fig. 1: 18, see also 20, 22) between the tread and the carcass, wherein the tread includes: a base layer (Fig. 1: 26B), and a cap layer (Fig. 1: 26C) covering the entire base layer, a loss tangent of the base layer is lower than a loss tangent of the cap layer ([0006], [0011], [0032]), each end of the base layer (Fig. 1: 28B) is located axially inward of an end of the belt (Fig. 1: 18, see also 20, 22), the belt (Fig. 1: 18) includes an inner belt ply (Fig. 1: 18A) and an outer belt ply (Fig. 1: 18B, see also 20, 22) located radially outward of the inner belt ply, each end of the outer belt ply (Fig. 1: 18B, see also 20, 22) is located axially inward of an end of the inner belt ply (Fig. 1: 18A).
Although Terada discloses examples wherein the loss tangent is at 100oC ([0046]), rather than the loss tangent of the base layer is at 70°C and the loss tangent of the cap layer is at 30°C, Terada clearly teaches a relative relationship that the base layer is formulated to exhibit lower loss tangent than the cap layer for the purposes of suppressing heat generation and improved high speed durability ([0011], [0046]). Because Tereda discloses a compositional relationship that yields a lower loss tangent in one layer relative to another layer for reducing heat generation, and demonstrates a relationship at a given elevated temperature, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the same relative property relationship at other conventional testing temperatures, including 70°C and 30°C.
However, Tereda does not expressly recite the cap layer is harder than the base layer.
Dill discloses a tire tread having a cap layer (Fig. 2: 34; Fig. 3: 62; Fig. 5: 80; Fig. 6: 90) and a base layer (Fig. 2: 32; Fig. 3: 68; Fig. 5: 84; Fig. 6: 92), wherein the hardness of the base is believed to be less than the hardness of the cap (Col 4 lines 22-23). As a result the base is generally softer than the cap (Col. 4 lines 23-24). By varying the hardness of the base the ride may be improved (Col. 4 lines 24-25). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the cap and base layer tread of Terada in order to provide the cap layer is harder than the base layer so as to improve ride performance, as taught by Dill.
Terada further discloses a tire for a motorcycle ([0001]), but does not expressly recite the tread has a tread pattern including a plurality of circumferential grooves, thereby forming a plurality of land portions aligned in an axial direction in the tread, the plurality of land portions include, in a portion between an equator plane of the tire and an end of the tread, a crown land portion located on the equator plane side, a shoulder land portion located on the tread end side, and a middle land portion located between the crown land portion and the shoulder land portion, a proportion ARc of the cap layer occupying the crown land portion is represented as an average value of a ratio of a cap layer thickness to a base layer thickness in the crown land portion, a proportion ARm of the cap layer occupying the middle land portion is represented as an average value of a ratio of a cap layer thickness to a base layer thickness in the middle land portion, a proportion ARs of the cap layer occupying the shoulder land portion is represented as an average value of a ratio of a cap layer thickness to a base layer thickness in the shoulder land portion.
Higuchi also discloses a tire for a motorcycle ([0019]), the tire comprising a tread pattern including a plurality of circumferential grooves (Figs. 1-2: 4), thereby forming a plurality of land portions aligned in an axial direction in the tread (Figs. 1-2: see land portions between each groove), the plurality of land portions include, in a portion between an equator plane (Figs. 1-2: C) of the tire and an end of the tread (Figs. 1-2: Te), a crown land portion located on the equator plane side, a shoulder land portion located on the tread end side, and a middle land portion located between the crown land portion and the shoulder land portion (Figs. 1-2). In this manner, cornering power is improved, steering stability performance is improved, excellent wear resistance performance is maintained, and good drainage performance when running on wet road surfaces is achieved ([0012]-[0013], [0032]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Terada in order to provide a tread pattern including a plurality of circumferential grooves and a plurality of land portions aligned in an axial direction in the tread so as to improve corning power and steering stability performance, maintain excellent wear resistance performance, and achieve good drainage performance when running on wet road surfaces, as taught by Higuchi.
Optionally, Yasuo also discloses a tire for a motorcycle, the tire comprising a tread pattern including a plurality of circumferential grooves (Figs. 1, 3-5, 7, 12-16: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d), thereby forming a plurality of land portions aligned in an axial direction in the tread (Figs. 1, 3-5, 7, 12-16: see land portions between each groove), the plurality of land portions include, in a portion between an equator plane (Figs. 1, 3-5, 7, 12-16: 0) of the tire and an end of the tread, a crown land portion located on the equator plane side, a shoulder land portion located on the tread end side, and a middle land portion located between the crown land portion and the shoulder land portion (Figs. 1, 3-5, 7, 12-16). In this manner, resistance to slippage may be improved while tire nice is controlled ([0011], [0017]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Terada in order to provide a tread pattern including a plurality of circumferential grooves and a plurality of land portions aligned in an axial direction in the tread so as to improve resistance to slippage and control tire noise, as taught by Yasuo.
Accordingly, because Terada discloses a cap layer having a particular thickness (Fig. 1: 26C) and a base layer having a particular thickness (Fig. 1: 26B), and Higuchi and optionally Yasuo disclose providing the tire with a crown land portion, a middle land portion, and a shoulder land portion, the tire of modified Terada will necessarily have a proportion ARc of the cap layer occupying the crown land portion that is represented as an average value of a ratio of a cap layer thickness to a base layer thickness in the crown land portion, a proportion ARm of the cap layer occupying the middle land portion that is represented as an average value of a ratio of a cap layer thickness to a base layer thickness in the middle land portion, and a proportion ARs of the cap layer occupying the shoulder land portion that is represented as an average value of a ratio of a cap layer thickness to a base layer thickness in the shoulder land portion.
Terada further illustrates that the base layer is shorter in the axial direction than the cap layer and is tapered at the axial ends (Fig. 1). Terada further discloses that although a thicker base is more effective in suppressing heat generation, it is preferable to make the base rubber thinner that the tire equatorial plane side, and in some cases to not provide the base rubber on the tread end side at all ([0023]: the ends of the base layer may stop short of extending to the tread ends in the axial direction). In other words, the thickness of the base layer, and thereby the thickness of the corresponding cap layer, are result effective variables that affect the heat generation of the tread. While Terada does not explicitly disclose the value for the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion, the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion, or the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said cap layer proportions. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion, the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion, and the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion in order to effectively suppress heat generation.
Additionally, because modified Terada discloses the crown, middle, and land portions, and the base layer extends through the land portions with a generally uniform thickness until it tapers at the axial ends, the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion will necessarily be equal to or higher than the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion, and the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion will necessarily be higher than the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion.
Optionally, Kunisawa discloses a tire comprising: a pair of beads (Fig. 1: 1), a carcass (Fig. 1: 2) extending on and between the pair of beads, a tread (Fig. 1: 3) radially outward of the carcass, and a belt (Fig. 1: 4) between the tread and the carcass, wherein the tread includes: a base layer (Fig. 1: 5), and a cap layer (Fig. 1: 6) covering the entire base layer, each end of the base layer (Fig. 1: 5) is located axially inward of an end of the belt (Fig. 1: 4), the belt includes an inner belt ply and an outer belt ply located radially outward of the inner belt ply (Fig. 1: 4), each end of the outer belt ply is located axially inward of an end of the inner belt ply (Fig. 1: 4). Kunisawa further discloses that the ratio of the cap layer thickness to the base layer thickness (Fig. 1: TC/TB) is at least 0.45 ([0008]). The hardness of the cap layer, the loss tangent and thickness of the base layer, and the ratio of the thickness of the cap layer to the base layer are specified so as to prevent separation of the tread portion from the tire main body, as well as to improve grip performance and abrasion resistance ([0010]). In other words, not only is the ratio of the cap to base layer thickness a result effective variable that affects separation of the tread portion from the tire main body, grip performance, and abrasion resistance, but it is also specified as being at least 0.45, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion is not less than 1.5 and not greater than 3.5, the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion is equal to or higher than the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion, the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion is higher than the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion and not less than 5.0 and not greater than 9.5, the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion is not less than 2.0 and not greater than 3.0, and the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion is higher than the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion and not less than 7.0 and not greater than 9.0. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion, the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion, and the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion. Moreover, case law holds that it is obvious to vary result-effective variables, as discussed above. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Terada in order to provide the ratio of the cap layer thickness to the base layer thickness in the aforementioned ranges so as to prevent separation of the tread portion from the tire main body, as well as to improve grip performance and abrasion resistance, as taught by Kunisawa.
Optionally, Kobori discloses a tire comprising: a pair of beads (Fig. 1: 4, 5), a carcass (Fig. 1: 6) extending on and between the pair of beads, a tread (Fig. 1: 2, 10) radially outward of the carcass, and a belt (Fig. 1: 7) between the tread and the carcass, wherein the tread includes: a base layer (Fig. 1: 12), and a cap layer (Fig. 1: 11) covering the entire base layer, each end of the base layer (Fig. 1: 12) is located axially inward of an end of the belt (Fig. 1: 7), the belt includes an inner belt ply and an outer belt ply located radially outward of the inner belt ply (Fig. 1: 7A, 7B). Kobori further discloses the thickness of the base layer (Fig. 1: t1) is 30% to 70% the tread thickness (Fig. 1: T1) in the crown region and tapers down to reduce the thickness of the base layer (Fig. 1: ta) at various points (Fig. 1: P), such at equal to or less than 30% (Fig. 1: t3) of the tread thickness (Fig. 1: T3) ([0032]-[0035]). In other words, the ratio of the thickness of the cap layer to the base layer in the crown region is 0.43 to 2.33, and towards the axial ends is greater than 2.33, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion is not less than 1.5 and not greater than 3.5, and the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion is equal to or higher than the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion. Moreover, assuming the ends of the base layer extend to the shoulder land portions, the range of greater than 2.33 will also overlap with the claimed range of the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion is higher than the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion and not less than 5.0 and not greater than 9.5. Additionally, the aforementioned ranges will overlap with the claimed ranges of the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion is not less than 2.0 and not greater than 3.0, and the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion is higher than the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion and not less than 7.0 and not greater than 9.0. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the cap layer proportion ARc of the crown land portion, the cap layer proportion ARm of the middle land portion, and the cap layer proportion ARs of the shoulder land portion. Providing the base layer thickness in such a manner affects the rigidity in the tread portion and thus the steering stability ([0029]-[0032]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Terada in order to provide the ratio of the cap layer thickness to the base layer thickness in the aforementioned ranges so as to provide sufficient rigidity and improve steering stability, as taught by Kobori.
Terada further discloses the base layer (Fig. 1: 28B) is tapered outward in the axial direction. Moreover, as Higuchi discloses providing shoulder land portions, and Terada does not expressly recite how far the base layer extends, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to extend and taper the base layer into the shoulder land portions as a predictable structural configuration.
Higuchi further discloses a common tire size of 255/65R18 ([0119]), wherein a nominal cross-sectional width is 255 mm, which falls within the claimed range of not less than 215 mm and not greater than 325 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the nominal cross-sectional width. Moreover, while Terada also discloses embodiments of test tire sizes of 190/55R17 ([0054]), this is merely a preferable example and does not explicitly limit the disclosure to such a limitation. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. It is also well settled that an applied reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art, including not only preferred embodiments, but less preferred and even non-preferred. See MPEP 2123. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to apply a common tire size as taught by Higuchi.
Furthermore, Higuchi discloses the “normal load” is a load specified for the tire by a standard included in a standardization system on which the tire is based, for example, the “maximum load capacity” in JATMA, maximum value listed in “TIRE LOAD LIMITS AT VARIOUS COLD INFLATION PRESSURES” table in TRA, and “LOAD CAPACITY” in ETRTO ([0038]). If there is no standardization system including standards on which the tire 1 is to be based, the “normal load” is a load specified by the tire manufacturer or the like ([0038]). Applicant’s specification similarly defines the load index (LI) ([0012]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select a load index (LI) of not less than 90 for evaluating the ground-contact surface of the tire taught by Higuchi as this constitutes routine selection and optimization of a known result-effective variable within conventional operating ranges.
Regarding claim 17, Higuchi further discloses, of the two ends of the tread (Figs. 1-2: Te), one end located on an inner side in a width direction of a vehicle when the tire is mounted on the vehicle is a first reference end, and another end is a second reference end, the first reference end side of the crown land portion with respect to the equator plane is a first portion (Figs. 1-2: see portion between groove 4 and equator plane C), and the second reference end side of the crown land portion with respect to the equator plane is a second portion (Figs. 1-2: see other portion between groove 4 and equator plane C on opposite side of first portion), and a ratio of a width of the second portion to the width of the crown land portion is approximately 50% as the crown land portion is centered on the equator plane (Figs. 1-2), which falls within the claimed range of not less than 51% and not greater than 55%. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a ratio of a width of the second portion to the width of the crown land portion.
Regarding claim 18, Terada further discloses each end of the cap layer (Fig. 1: 26C) is axially outward of the end of the belt (Fig. 1: 18A).
Dill further discloses a hardness of the cap layer is from about 55 to about 75 (Col. 4 lines 26-29), which overlaps with the claimed range of not less than 60 and not greater than 70, and a hardness of the base layer is from about 45 to about 60 (Col. 4 lines 26-29), which overlaps with the claimed range of not less than 50 and not greater than 65. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the hardness of the cap layer and the base layer.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (JP 2009119967, see machine translation), Dill et al. (EP 0341187), Higuchi (US 20220194133), and optionally Yasuo et al. (CN 101298227, see machine translation), Kunisawa et al. (EP 1632364), and Kobori (EP 3944967) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe (JP 2008201380, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Higuchi further discloses a ground-contact surface (Fig. 2: 2a) obtained when the tire is fitted onto a standardized rim ([0008]), an internal pressure of the tire is adjusted to a normal inner pressure as specified by the tire manufacturer ([0008], [0025]-[0026]), a camber angle of the tire is set to 0 degrees ([0008]), a vertical load is applied to the tire ([0008]), and the tire is brought into contact with a road surface composed of a flat surface, is a standard ground-contact surface ([0008]). Although Higuchi does not expressly recite what the specific normal internal pressure is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized, or alternatively found obvious, that 250 kPa internal air pressure is a generally known and applied pressure for tires. Additionally, Higuchi discloses the “normal inner pressure” is air pressure specified for the tire by a standard included in a standardization system on which the tire is based, for example, the “maximum air pressure” in JATMA, maximum value listed in the “TIRE LOAD LIMITS AT VARIOUS COLD INFLATION PRESSURES” table in TRA, and “INFLATION PRESSURE” in ETRTO ([0025]), and if there is no standardization system including standards on which the tire 1 is to be based, the “normal inner pressure” is air pressure specified by the tire manufacturer or the like ([0026]). Applicant’s specification similarly defines the internal pressure ([0011]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select an internal pressure of 250 kPa for evaluating the ground-contact surface of the tire taught by Higuchi as this constitutes routine selection and optimization of a known result-effective variable within conventional operating ranges.
Optionally, Yasuo further discloses a ground-contact surface (Figs. 1, 3-5, 7, 12-16) obtained when the tire is fitted onto a standardized rim ([0047], [0154]), an internal pressure of the tire is adjusted to normal ([0047], [0154]), a vertical load is applied to the tire ([0047], [0154]), and the tire is brought into contact with a road surface composed of a flat surface, is a standard ground-contact surface. Yasuo further discloses that normal air pressure refers to the air pressure defined by the maximum load capacity according to standard industry criteria, such as in the United States the "Year Book of The Tire and Rim Association Inc.", in Europe the "Standard Manual of The European Tire and Rim Technical Organization", and in Japan the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association Inc. the "JATMA Year Book" ([0055]-[0056]). Applicant’s specification similarly defines the internal pressure ([0011]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, or alternatively found obvious, that a standard pressure of 250 kPa may be applied to the tire. Additionally, Yasuo discloses an embodiments wherein the internal pressure of the tire may be 210 kPa or 220 kPa ([0218], [0240], [0258], [0272], [0276]). While the examples do not specify 250 kPa, case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect tire pressures of 210 and 220 kPa to behave in substantially the same way as 250 kPa. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the internal pressure of the tire. Yasuo further discloses that a camber angle of the tire may be set to 0 degrees ([0049], [0072]: wherein the camber angle may be negative when necessary or as a result of changes in load, braking, or traction).
Higuchi further illustrates a ratio of a sum of groove widths of the plurality of circumferential grooves included in the standard ground-contact surface to the ground-contact width of the standard ground-contact surface is approximately 22% (Fig. 2: see entire width TW and the sum of the widths of each groove 4), which falls within the claimed range of not less than 20% and not greater than 30%. While Higuchi does not state whether the figure is drawn to scale, one of ordinary skill in the art would have nonetheless found it obvious that the sum of the groove widths would be reasonably in the range of 22% of the contact width. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the ratio.
However, modified Terada does not expressly recite a ground-contact width of the standard ground-contact surface is not less than 70% and not greater than 80% of a nominal cross-sectional width of the tire.
Watanabe discloses a tire wherein a ratio (TW/SW) of the tread contact width (Fig. 1: TW) to the section width (i.e., nominal cross-sectional width) (Fig. 1: SW) is in the range of 0.6 to 0.75 ([0006], [0008]), which overlaps with the claimed range of not less than 70% and not greater than 80%. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the ratio. In this manner, both reduced rolling resistance and steering stability can be achieved ([0008]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Terada in order to provide a ground-contact width of the standard ground-contact surface relative to a nominal cross-sectional width of the tire is within the aforementioned range so as to achieve both reduced rolling resistance and steering stability, as taught by Watanabe.
The limitation “the vertical load applied to the tire is not less than 60% and not greater than 80% of a load indicated by a load index of the tire” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the tire that differentiates it from the tire disclosed by modified Terada. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because modified Terada discloses a tire having the claimed structural features, as discussed above, which is capable of applying vertical load to the tire that is not less than 60% and not greater than 80% of a load indicated by a load index of the tire.
Optionally, Yasuo discloses that the tire may be under a load (i.e., vertical load) equivalent to not less than 70% of the tire’s maximum load capacity (i.e., load index) ([0119]), which overlaps with the claimed range not less than 60% and not greater than 80%. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the vertical load relative to the load index.
Regarding claim 4, Higuchi further discloses the tread pattern includes four circumferential grooves (Figs. 1-2: 4), thereby forming five land portions in the tread, the five land portions are the crown land portion located on the equator plane (Figs. 1-2), a pair of the middle land portions located axially outward of the crown land portion (Figs. 1-2), and a pair of the shoulder land portions located axially outward of the respective middle land portions (Figs. 1-2),.
Higuchi further illustrates a ratio of a width of the crown land portion to the ground-contact width (Figs. 1-2: see TW, which is ½ the width, as it applies to both sides) of the standard ground-contact surface is approximately 14% (Fig. 2), which falls within the claimed range of not less than 14% and not greater than 16%.While Higuchi does not state whether the figure is drawn to scale, one of ordinary skill in the art would have nonetheless found it obvious that the ratio of a width of the crown land portion to the ground-contact width would be reasonably in the range of approximately 14%. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the ratio.
Optionally, Yasuo further discloses the tread pattern includes four circumferential grooves (Figs. 1, 5, 7, 14-16: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d), thereby forming five land portions in the tread (Figs. 1, 5, 7, 14-16), the five land portions are the crown land portion located on the equator plane (Figs. 1, 5, 7, 14-16: 0), a pair of the middle land portions located axially outward of the crown land portion (Figs. 1, 5, 7, 14-16), and a pair of the shoulder land portions located axially outward of the respective middle land portions (Figs. 1, 5, 7, 14-16).
Regarding claim 5, Terada further discloses of the two ends of the tread (Fig. 1: 24E), one end located on an inner side in a width direction of a vehicle when the tire is mounted on the vehicle is a first reference end, and another end is a second reference end (Fig. 1). Higuchi also discloses, of the two ends of the tread (Figs. 1-2: Te), one end located on an inner side in a width direction of a vehicle when the tire is mounted on the vehicle is a first reference end, and another end is a second reference end (Figs. 1-2).
Higuchi further discloses the contact lengths and widths of the various land portions affect cornering power and steering stability performance ([0039]-[0040]). In other words, the widths of the land portions are considered to be result effective variables. While modified Terada does not explicitly disclose the value for a width of the middle land portion on the first reference end side, a width of the middle land portion on the second reference end side, a width of the shoulder land portion on the first reference end side, and a width of the shoulder land portion on the second reference end side, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for a width of the middle land portion on the first reference end side, a width of the middle land portion on the second reference end side, a width of the shoulder land portion on the first reference end side, and a width of the shoulder land portion on the second reference end side. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize a width of the middle land portion on the first reference end side, a width of the middle land portion on the second reference end side, a width of the shoulder land portion on the first reference end side, and a width of the shoulder land portion on the second reference end side in order to improve cornering power and steering stability.
Regarding claim 6, Higuchi further discloses a first reference end side of the crown land portion with respect to the equator plane is a first portion (Figs. 1-2: see portion between groove 4 and equator plane C), and a second reference end side of the crown land portion with respect to the equator plane is a second portion (Figs. 1-2: see other portion between groove 4 and equator plane C on opposite side of first portion), and a ratio of a width of the second portion to the width of the crown land portion is approximately 50% as the crown land portion is centered on the equator plane (Figs. 1-2), which falls within the claimed range of not less than 51% and not greater than 55%. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a ratio of a width of the second portion to the width of the crown land portion.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE (née AYALP) whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 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, KATELYN SMITH (née WHATLEY) can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749