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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitago (WO 2021/079564, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 2, Kitago is directed to a tire construction comprising an outer layer of rubber 11 forming a tread and an upper portion of a sidewall, a cushion 12 disposed on a radially inside of said tread, and a belt package 30 disposed on a radially inward side of said cushion. See modified Figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In terms of a thickness of said cushion layer and said outer rubber layer, Kitago teaches a preferred arrangement in which a cushion rubber thickness (corresponds with t0-t1) is between 0.3 and 0.4 times a combined thickness of the cushion rubber and the outer rubber layer (t0). This in turn results in (a) an outer layer occupying between 60% and 70% of said combined thickness and (b) a ratio between the outer rubber layer and the cushion rubber layer 1.5 and 2.3. These values are measured under the tread in a land portion 112c that is adjacent a tire equatorial plane. In such an instance, though, Kitago fails to expressly disclose thickness relationships in the shoulder region (claimed as region of interest). Modified Figure 1 below depicts the location of such a region of interest in the vicinity of the belt end.
PNG
media_image2.png
610
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It appears that cushion layer 12 has a substantially constant thickness over the axial extent of said layer and outer rubber layer 11 has a thickness that is slightly less in the region of interest, as compared to in the vicinity of the equatorial plane of the tire. This in turn suggests that (a) a ratio (claimed as first ratio) between the thickness of the outer rubber layer and the cushion rubber layer in the region of interest would be slightly less than the same ratio in land portion 112c (slightly less than the range of 0.60-0.70 and fully encompassed by the claimed range between 0.37 and 0.73) and (b) a ratio (claimed as second ratio) between an outer rubber layer thickness in a region of interest and a thickness of the cushion rubber beneath the tread (for example, under land portion 112c) would be slightly less than the range of 1.5-2.3 (would significantly overlap the claimed range between 1.4 and 3.1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Kitago in accordance to the claimed invention given the express disclosure of the relationship between t0 and t1 in a location distant from a region of interest under the tread and the recognition that a smaller outer rubber layer thickness is present in the region of interest, as compared to under a land portion 112c. It is emphasized that specific thickness values are disclosed under a land portion 112c and the figures generally suggest that slightly different thickness values for the outer rubber layer would be present in the region of interest. It is further noted that even if the thickness values t0 and t1 did not change between the region of interest and land portion 112c, the claimed ratios would be satisfied- the fact that the thickness values are specifically disclosed under land portion 112c, though, does suggest that a slightly smaller thickness in the outer rubber layer would be present in the region of interest and such would satisfy the claimed ratios as detailed above.
Regarding claim 2, a combined or total thickness in the region of interest includes a thickness of the cushion rubber layer a thickness of the outer rubber layer.
With respect to claim 3, respective thickness values are measured with respect to a normal liner in relation to the tire surface.
4. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitago as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Ozaki (JP 2021-3922, of record).
As detailed above, Kitago teaches a tire construction including an outer rubber layer or tread cap layer. In such an instance, though, Kitago is silent with respect to the 100% modulus of said cap layer. In any event, the claimed values are consistent with those that are associated with tread cap layers, as shown for example by Ozaki. In such an instance, Ozaki states that 100% modulus values are preferably between 1.0 MPa and 4.0 Mpa. It is further noted that Kitago is directed to a wide variety of tire constructions, including passenger car tires, and thus the teachings of Ozaki, which are similarly directed to a wide variety of tire constructions, including passenger car tires, are consistent with the tire of Kitago.
Lastly, regarding claim 4, while Ozaki fails to teach the penetration energy, it reasons that the claimed energy would be present in the tire of Kitago as modified by Ozaki since the disclosed 100% modulus values mimic those required by the claimed invention (in light of Applicant’s original disclosure, compositions having the claimed modulus properties appear to demonstrate an energy in accordance to the claimed invention).
5. Claim(s) 5-9, 12-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitago and further in view of Akiyama (JP 2007-191044, of record).
Kitago, as described above, is directed to a tire construction including a conventional carcass 20. In such an instance, though, Kitago is primarily concerned with the specific thickness values for an outer rubber layer (tread cap) and a cushion layer (tread base). Thus, Kitago fails to describe or depict a carcass arrangement in a bead region.
Akiyama is similarly directed to a passenger car tire and teaches a specific arrangement of carcass ends in order to reduce vibrations transmitted to a bead filler and improve road noise properties. More particularly, Figures 3 and 4 depict inventive arrangements in which a carcass turnup end (associated with carcass 7a) is not completely wrapped around respective bead cores in accordance to the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the carcass arrangement taught by Akiyama in the tire of Kitago for the benefits detailed above.
Regarding claim 6, the claimed cord diameters are consistent with those that are conventionally used in a wide variety of tire constructions, including passenger car tires. It is further noted that the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions are dependent on the tire size and ultimately the intended use of the tire.
With respect to claims 7, 16, and 20, Figures 3 and 4 of Akiyama are seen to satisfy the claimed ranges.
As to claims 13-15, 18, and 19, the teachings of Kitago in relation to the claimed thickness relationship have been discussed in Paragraph 3 above.
6. Claim(s) 8, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama and in view of Wada (US 2010/0243115, of record).
Akiyama is directed to a passenger car tire including a tread 1, a sidewall 2, and a plurality of carcass plies 6,7. More particularly, Figures 3 and 4 depict inventive arrangements in which a carcass turnup end (associated with carcass 7a) is not completely wrapped around respective bead cores in accordance to the claimed invention (less than 270 degrees). While a junction between the tread and sidewall is not clear, it is well known that tire constructions, including those designed for passenger cars, commonly include tread over sidewall (TOS) designs in which a rubber layer that defines the tread also defines a radially outer portion of the sidewall. Wada provides one example of a passenger car tire including such a structure (Paragraph 78 and Figures 1, 4, 6, and 7). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional tread/sidewall structure in the tire of Akiyama, as taught by Wada, as it constitutes one of the extremely limited number of arrangements in modern day tire constructions.
Regarding claim 9, Figures 3 and 4 are seen to satisfy the claimed ranges.
As to claim 12, the claimed cord diameters are consistent with those that are conventionally used in a wide variety of tire constructions, including passenger car tires. It is further noted that the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions are dependent on the tire size and ultimately the intended use of the tire.
7. Claim(s) 8, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigaki (EP 3925794, of record) and in view of DeGraaf (US 5,464,489, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Ishigaki is directed to a tire construction including a tread 2, a pair of sidewalls 8, a pair of shoulders (junction between tread and sidewall), a pair of bead cores, and a plurality of carcass plies 7A,7B, wherein an axially innermost carcass 7B includes an inner end 7d (corresponds with claimed first end) that is not wrapped around a bead core in accordance to the claimed invention (less than 270 degrees). While a junction between the tread and sidewall is not clear, it is well known that tire constructions commonly include tread over sidewall (TOS) designs in which a rubber layer that defines the tread also defines a radially outer portion of the sidewall. DeGraaf provides one example of a tire including such a structure (Column 1, Lines 40-50). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional tread/sidewall structure in the tire of Ishigaki, as taught by DeGraaf, as it constitutes one of the extremely limited number of arrangements in modern day tire constructions.
As to claim 12, the claimed cord diameters are consistent with those that are conventionally used in a wide variety of tire constructions. It is further noted that the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions are dependent on the tire size and ultimately the intended use of the tire.
8. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama as applied claim 8 above and further in view of Ozaki.
As detailed above, Akiyama teaches a passenger car tire construction including an outer rubber layer (tread ground contacting layer). In such an instance, though, Akiyama is silent with respect to the 100% modulus of the tread ground contacting layer. In any event, the claimed values are consistent with those that are associated with tread ground contacting layers in passenger car tires, as shown for example by Ozaki. In such an instance, Ozaki states that 100% modulus values are preferably between 1.0 MPa and 4.0 MPa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional mechanical properties in the tread ground contacting layer of Akiyama.
Lastly, regarding claim 10, while Ozaki fails to teach the penetration energy, it reasons that the claimed energy would be present in the tire of Kitago as modified by Ozaki since the disclosed 100% modulus values mimic those required by the claimed invention (in light of Applicant’s original disclosure, compositions having the claimed modulus properties appear to demonstrate an energy in accordance to the claimed invention).
9. Claim(s) 17 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitago and Akiyama as applied in claim 16 above and further in view of Ozaki.
As detailed above, Kitago teaches a tire construction including an outer rubber layer or tread cap layer. In such an instance, though, Kitago is silent with respect to the 100% modulus of said cap layer. In any event, the claimed values are consistent with those that are associated with tread cap layers, as shown for example by Ozaki. In such an instance, Ozaki states that 100% modulus values are preferably between 1.0 MPa and 4.0 Mpa. It is further noted that Kitago is directed to a wide variety of tire constructions, including passenger car tires, and thus the teachings of Ozaki, which are similarly directed to a wide variety of tire constructions, including passenger car tires, are consistent with the tire of Kitago.
Lastly, regarding claim 17, while Ozaki fails to teach the penetration energy, it reasons that the claimed energy would be present in the tire of Kitago as modified by Ozaki since the disclosed 100% modulus values mimic those required by the claimed invention (in light of Applicant’s original disclosure, compositions having the claimed modulus properties appear to demonstrate an energy in accordance to the claimed invention).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues that Kitago does not explain a region of interest disposed between a radially innermost lateral edge of the belt package and a radially outermost lateral edge of the belt package. As detailed in the modified figure above, though, Kitago necessarily includes a region of interest- the fact that Kitago fails to expressly depict or describe the boundaries of said region of interest fails to render the claims non-obvious.
Applicant further contends that the Office relies on what Kitago’s figures allegedly appear to show, namely that the cushion layer has a substantially constant thickness and that the outer rubber layer is slightly thinner near the belt edge. It is well recognized that cushion layers or tread base layers are conventionally formed with a substantially uniform thickness. This is consistent with the figures of Kitago. In regards to the outer rubber layer, it is believed that the figures do in fact suggest a general relationship between the outer rubber layer thickness and the cushion rubber layer thickness. For example, t3 and t2 are depicted as generally being on the same thickness order and such is consistent with the disclosure that t3/t2 is greater than or equal to 0.5. Similarly, t1 is generally depicted as being greater than a cushion rubber thickness t0-t1 and such is consistent with the disclosure that t1 is between 1.5 and 2.3 times t0. These relationships are consistent with the general depiction that a ratio between an outer rubber layer thickness and an underlying cushion rubber is greater in a region at the tire equatorial plane, as compared with a region beneath a tread groove. Thus, it is believed that the figures do in fact suggest general relationships between thickness of tire components. Additionally, as detailed above, even if the ratios (in Kitago) between the outer rubber layer and the cushion rubber layer were the same in the region of interest and in the region under land portion 112c, Kitago would still encompass a wide variety of ratios in accordance to the claimed invention. It is emphasized that the figures generally depict a smaller ratio between the outer rubber layer and the cushion rubber layer in the region of interest, as compared to a region including the equatorial plane of the tire, and such is similarly consistent with conventional tire designs (given the common tread curvature, a tread rubber thickness or outer rubber layer thickness is conventionally reduced at respective shoulder regions, resulting a smaller ratio between the outer rubber layer and the cushion rubber layer). Furthermore, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the broad ranges of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 4-6, Applicant’s arguments are solely directed to Kitago and such arguments have been addressed in the previous paragraph.
As to claim 8, Applicant argues that the Examiner has not identified any express disclosure in Akiyama of a carcass ply end wrapping 270 degrees or less around a bead core. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the modified figure below in which an angle, as claimed, is slightly less than 180 degrees.
PNG
media_image3.png
556
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant further contends that Akiyama’s bead core has a square cross-section rather than a circular cross-section. This argument is not entirely understood since the claims simply require a tire including a bead core. It is further noted that circular and square bead cores are well recognized as corresponding with conventional bead core geometries and such are extensively disclosed as being alternatives in modern day tire constructions.
Applicant argues that Akiyama does not explain at least an outer layer of rubber forming a tread and a sidewall; a shoulder region positioned between the tread and the sidewall”. This argument is not entirely understood. Figure 1 of Akiyama depicts a tire having a tread and a sidewall, both of which are fundamental components of tire constructions. Additionally, a region recognized as a junction between the tread and the sidewall is well recognized as a conventional shoulder (any arbitrary region can actually be defined as a shoulder between the tread and the sidewall- lack of structural limitations in the claim for the makeup of the shoulder).
As to Ishigaki, Applicant argues that the reference does not explain at least “a plurality of carcass plies layered along a radially inward side of the tread, the plurality of carcass plies having at least one carcass ply with a first end wrapping 270 degrees or less around a bead core of the sidewall. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. See modified figure 3 below in which an angle is less than 90 degrees..
PNG
media_image4.png
716
784
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Applicant’s arguments are centered on the carcass wrapping amount and such has been addressed in the previous paragraph.
With respect to claim 17, Applicant’s arguments are centered on the thickness of the outer rubber layer and the thickness of the cushion rubber and such has been addressed when describing the teachings of Kitago.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
12. 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 July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights