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 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) 1-11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brayer (US 4,815,511) and further in view of Kimura (US 10,696,823).
Brayer is directed to a tire construction comprising a tread part, wherein G/Vt (weight/internal volume) is substantially 0.011 lbs/in3 (corresponds with approximately 304 kg/m3) (Column 11, Lines 49-51). In such an instance, though, Brayer is completely silent with respect to the tread composition.
Kimura is similarly directed to a tire construction comprising a tread part. More particularly, Kimura teaches a tread composition designed to provide high braking performance on wet and dry road surfaces (Column 1, Lines 63+). Table 1 includes multiple tread compositions (Examples 1-18, 24, 25, ) including a rubber component formed with at least 85% by weight of isoprene rubber (natural rubber) and a filler component formed with at least 60% of silica. More particularly, several of the disclosed tread compositions include 100 phr of natural rubber (corresponds with AIR of 100) and 72 phr of silica (corresponds with ASIL of 90) and such results in a product of 9,000 (greater than 5200 as required by the claims). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the tread rubber composition of Kimura in the tire of Brayer for the benefits detailed above.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the language “heavy-duty tire” fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire article (language corresponds with an intended use of the tire as opposed to imparting specific structural limitations).
With respect to claim 2, given that the tread rubber composition of Kimura includes materials and loadings consistent with the claimed invention, it reasons that the tread rubber composition of Kimura would demonstrate a hardness in accordance to the broad range of the claimed invention.
As to claim 3, the tread rubber composition of Kimura includes at least 5phr of a thermoplastic resin (Column 3, Lines 64+).
Regarding claims 5-8, as detailed above, several of the exemplary compositions in Kimura have AIR of 100 and ASIL of 90. Also, Kimura states that that filler can be formed solely with silica (Column 5, Lines 55+) and such corresponds with ASIL of 100.
With respect to claims 9-11, Brayer states that a ratio is “substantially” 0.011 lbs/in3. This corresponds with “substantially” 304 kg/m3. A fair reading of the Brayer suggests that the tire is not limited to a ratio of 0.011 and would include ratios that are slightly different from 0.011. The claimed ratios correspond with 0.0101 lbs/in3 and 0.0091 lbs/in3. It is evident that such values are extremely similar to the exemplary value of Bayer identified above. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use ratios in accordance to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, the tire of Brayer includes nylon overlays 32 that correspond with the claimed band ply. Additionally, the language “helically wound band cord” relates to a manufacturing method as opposed to limiting the structural makeup of the tire.
With respect to claim 15, Figure 2 in Brayer generally depicts a bead filler extension in accordance to the claimed invention (bead filler corresponds with triangular rubber component that extends radially outward from the bead core). It is emphasized that the broad range of the claimed invention is consistent with well-known and conventional arrangements of bead filler or bead apex components (provides the desired rigidity in the bead region since it is formed with a hard rubber composition).
4. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brayer and Kimura as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Lange (EP 21919842).
As detailed above, Brayer is directed to a tire construction comprising a tread part. Additionally, said tread part includes a plurality of circumferential grooves 52, 54, 56, and 58. While Brayer is silent with respect to a groove shape, it is extremely well known and conventional to form similar circumferential grooves with a nek and trunk design in order to promote durability at the groove base, as shown for example by Lange (Figures 1 and 2 and Paragraph 3 of machine translation). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the circumferential grooves of Brayer with a geometry in accordance to the claimed invention for the benefits detailed above.
5. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brayer and Kimura as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of (JP 4980656).
As detailed above, Brayer is directed to a tire construction comprising a tread part. Additionally, said tread part includes a plurality of sipes 96 extending in a tire width direction. While Brayer is silent with respect to a sipe shape, it is extremely well known and conventional to form similar sipes with a nek and trunk design in order to promote water suction, as shown for example by JP ‘656 (Abstract and Figures 3 and 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the sipes of Brayer with a geometry in accordance to the claimed invention for the benefits detailed above.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 4404922 and JP 4299804 depict the presence of tread blocks incorporating axially extending sipes formed with a neck and trunk design. Sawada (JP 2006-51863) depicts the presence of circumferentially extending sipes formed with a neck and trunk design. Takahashi (JP 2000-211320) depicts the presence of axially extending and circumferentially extending sipes formed with a neck and trunk design.
7. 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 August 17, 2026
