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
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 1-9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himeda (EP 4331868) in view of Hosoda (US Pub. No. 2023/0058858).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-9, Himeda teaches a heavy duty tire (title) comprising a tread part 1, the tread part comprising a rubber layer composed of a rubber composition (paragraph [0096]), the tread part comprising a first layer constituting a tread surface (paragraph [0008]), the rubber comprises an isoprene-based rubber (paragraph [0097]) and a filler containing silica (paragraph [0116]), where the content of the isoprene-based rubber is particularly preferably 50% by mass or more, and can be 100% by mass (paragraph [0100]), overlapping the claimed ranges of claims 1 and 6, wherein the filler can comprise only silica (i.e. 100% silica), and for compositions comprising carbon black and silica, the preferable amount of carbon black is 5 parts by mass to 90 parts by mass (paragraph [0120]) and the preferable amount of silica is 3 parts by mass to 90 parts by mass (paragraph [0123]), resulting in filler percentages of silica of from 3% (3/(90+3)) to 95% (90/(90+5)), overlapping the claimed ranges of claims 1 and 4-5, with a specific embodiment having five circumferential grooves 3, 4 and 5 (paragraph [0065]; figure 1), where a groove depth of the circumferential grooves is preferably greater than 4 mm and less than 26 mm (paragraph [0075]), and tan delta at 70 degrees C of the first layer is preferably less than 0.20 and preferably 0.03 or more (paragraph [0082]), overlapping the claimed range of claim 9, therefore embodiments taught by Himeda reading on the claimed range would have A of from just greater than 85 to 100, B of just greater than 60 to 100, and D of from 0.03 to just less than 0.20. Himeda also teaches using flask-like circumferential grooves for each circumferential groove, the flask-like circumferential grooves having a neck part having a narrow groove width, and a trunk part arranged on an inner side in a radial direction of the neck part and having a groove width larger than the maximum groove width of the neck part (paragraphs [0071]-[0081]; figures 2-3), with specific embodiments having a groove width W1 of 5 mm (paragraph [0167]), as well as teaching a total amount of recession c1+c2 of the circumferential groove 3 is preferably 0.10 to 5.00 times the groove width W1 (paragraph [0081]), such teachings resulting in numerous embodiments where the width at the tread surface (W1 – (c1+c2)) is 2.0 mm or less, which is the known width at which passenger car tire grooves close during grounding contact. Himeda does not specifically disclose the maximum thickness of a shoulder of the tread part measured in a direction normal to a tire inner cavity surface. In a tire similarly directed to heavy duty use, Hosoda teaches using a maximum thickness TE of the shoulder land measured along the normal to the inner surface of the tire of not less than 35 mm (paragraph [0183]), overlapping the claimed ranges of claims 1 and 7-8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a maximum thickness of the shoulder land measured along the normal to the inner surface of the tire as taught by Hosoda in the tire of Himeda as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Such a combination results in a range of (A x B) / (C x D) of from about 622 ((85 x 60)/(41 x 0.20)) to 9524 ((100 x 100)/(35x0.03)), overlapping the claimed range. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create embodiments of Himeda where (A x B) / (C x D) is greater than 1300, because Himeda in view of Hosoda teaches many embodiments which result in such an inequality being true.
Regarding claim 2, Himeda teaches a Shore hardness of the first layer is further preferably 65 or more, and further preferably 70 or less (paragraph [0091]), the further preferable range being fully encompassed by the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Himeda teaches a specific embodiment where the silica is Ultrasil VN3 manufactured by Evonik Degussa (paragraph [0166]), such a silica having an average particle size of about 14 nm.
Regarding claims 13-14, official notice is taken that it is extremely well-known and conventional in a tire to use a helically wound band ply and a plurality of belt plies radially inside of the band ply, and it would have been obvious to do so in order to appropriately reinforce the crown of the tire.
Regarding claim 15, Himeda teaches a pair of outermost circumferential grooves 5 and one center circumferential groove 3 extending on the tire center line (paragraph [0065]; figure 1), a pair of shoulder land parts 8 partitioned by the pair of outermost circumferential grooves, a pair of center land parts (6 and 7 collectively) that are partitioned by the pair of outermost circumferential main grooves and the center circumferential groove (paragraph [0066]; figure 1), the claimed W2/W3 is less than 1 (figure 1), a ratio of the claimed maximum distance WC-C/TW is greater than 0.50 (figure 1), and a ratio WC/TW of the maximum width WC of the center land part (distance from the centerline C to outermost circumferential groove 5) to the tread width TW is more than 0.23 (figure 1).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himeda in view of Hosoda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takenoya (JP05-254314; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Himeda teaches using flask-like circumferential grooves for each circumferential groove, including the center circumferential groove 3, the flask-like circumferential grooves having a neck part having a narrow groove width, and a trunk part arranged on an inner side in a radial direction of the neck part and having a groove width larger than the maximum groove width of the neck part, and outermost circumferential grooves 5 (paragraphs [0065]-[0081]; figures 2-3). Further, Himeda teaches center sipes 22 (paragraph [0069]; figure 1), but does not specifically disclose that these sipes are flask shaped. In a tire similarly directed to being a heavy duty tire (title), Takenoya teaches providing flask-like width direction sipes S1 with a neck part having a narrow width and a trunk part k wider than the maximum groove width of the neck part (machine translation at page 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use flask-like width direction sipes as taught by Takenoya in the tire of Himeda in order to provide a desired driving and breaking force, and at the same time prevent block breakage (see Takenoya machine translation at page 8, sixth paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach or suggest that the flask-like circumferential groove closes during ground contact. However, as is set forth above, Himeda teaches a groove width W1 and recession amounts c1+c2 which results in numerous embodiments which would have the circumferential groove close during ground contact.
Applicant argues that the specific embodiments of Himeda do not teach or suggest the claimed limitations, and only a rubber layer used as a second layer as opposed to the first layer, satisfies the compounding requirements of claim 1. However, “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art.” MPEP at 2123. The rejections are based on the ranges of the claimed values set forth within the disclosure of Himeda, such ranges reading on the claimed ranges/relationships, and accordingly rendering them obvious.
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 June 15, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights