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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 10/14/2025. Claims 17-23, 25-27, 29, 33, 34, and 36-39 are pending for examination.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 17-23, 25-27, 29, 34, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagashira (JP H09-323511 A – of Record) in view of Document 1 (GB 1549347 A – of Record), Fukuda (US 2015/0239296 A1 – of Record), Schildhauer (DE 10311430 A1 – of Record), and Christensen (US Patent No. 5,733,650 – of Record).
Regarding claim 17, Tagashira teaches a tire (Fig. 1) comprising a tread band and a plurality of recesses (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. G1, G2, Y) defining a plurality of blocks (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. B) where each block comprises a tread surface portion and a first lateral wall (leading wall) that extends towards the bottom of the recess and that each block has a circumferential length of less than 50 mm (Para. [0019]) and there is a belt layer made of two crossing belts (Para. [0010]). However, Tagashira does not teach that the first lateral wall comprises a connection surface.
In an analogous art, Document 1 teaches a tire where the tread elements have a curved, chamfered (connection surface) surface (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 59, 61) that connects to the first lateral wall and to the tread surface portion in a substantially tangential manner. Document 1 also teaches that the width of the chamfered surface is between 0.15L and 0.5L (Page 4, Lines 111-115) where L is the circumferential length of the block. Based on the block length of less than 50 mm taught by Tagashira, that would make the connection surface length be less than 7.5 mm. Tagashira in view of Document 1 does not expressly disclose a value of 1 mm to 2.5 mm; however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the connection surface length within the claimed range since Tagashira in view of Document 1 discloses the connection surface length as less than 7.5 mm, said range overlapping the claimed range. Document 1 teaches that theses connections surfaces should be present on all walls of the blocks (Fig. 8); therefore, there will be connection surface on a second lateral wall (trailing edge) connected to the tread surface by a connection surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tagashira with Document 1 in order to add chamfers around all the edges of the tread elements. This modification will decrease the amount of edge wear on the tread elements (Document 1; Page 3, Lines 81-97). In order to have a connection surface length of 1 – 2.5 mm, the block length would have to be 16 mm or less. While this is within the range of 50 mm or less taught by Tagashira, it is toward the lower end. Block length, however, is mostly a factor of tire size and it is known in the art to have winter tires with block of similar lengths (Christensen; Col. 3, Lines 44-47). However, neither Tagashira nor Document 1 teach the angle between the connection surface and the first lateral wall.
In an analogous art, Fukuda teaches a curved, chamfered surface on the axial grooves of a tire (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 511) where the angled formed between the tangent line of the connection surface and a line perpendicular to the groove wall (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. A) is greater than 20 degrees (Para. [0066]). That would mean that the angle between the tangent line of the connection surface and the tangent line of the groove wall would be 90 – A or less than 70 degrees. Fukuda does not expressly disclose a value of greater than 20 degrees; however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the angle between the connecting surface tangent line and the first lateral wall tangent line within the claimed range since Fukuda discloses the angle between the connecting surface tangent line and the first lateral wall tangent line as less than 70 degrees (Para. [0066]), said range overlapping the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tagashira and Document 1 with Fukuda to form the angle between the connecting surface tangent line and the first lateral wall tangent line as less than 70 degrees. This modification will allow the front edge of the block to come into contact with the road on a snowy surface when the coefficient of friction is high and will not allow the edge of the block to come into contact with the road on an icy surface when the coefficient of friction is low (Fukuda; Para. [0067]).
The modified Tagashira teaches that the plurality of blocks comprises blocks in a shoulder region (Tagashira; Fig. 2, outermost block rows) where the connection surface is joined to the first lateral wall at a first depth (Document 1; Fig. 7, Ref. Num. D) and blocks in a central region (Tagashira; Fig. 3, innermost block rows) where the connection surface is joined to the first lateral wall at a second depth (Document 1; Fig. 7, Ref. Num. D); however the modified Tagashira does not teach the second depth is smaller than the first depth.
In an analogous art, Schildhauer teaches a tire where the depth of the lateral grooves consistently increases from the center of the tire towards the outsides (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 14; Para. [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Tagashira with Schildhauer to consistently increase the depth of the lateral grooves from the center of the tire towards the outsides. This modification will improve water drainage (Schildhauer; Para. [0014]). Since the depth of the lateral grooves increases from the center of the tire to the outside (Schildhauer; Fig. 3) and the first and second depth are dependent on the groove depth (Document 1; Page. 4, Lines 24-32), the second depth will be smaller than the first depth.
Regarding claim 18, modified Tagashira teaches that the connection surface is joined to the wall at a depth (Document 1; Fig. 6, Ref. Num. D) that is between 20% and 40% of the recess depth (Page 4, Lines, 29-32), which is within the claimed range of less than 50%.
Regarding claim 19, modified Tagashira teaches that the connection surface is joined to the wall at a depth (Document 1; Fig. 6, Ref. Num. D) that is between 20% and 40% of the recess depth (Page 4, Lines, 29-32), which is overlaps the claimed range of less than 35% which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 20, modified Tagashira teaches the depth of the connection surface is 20% to 40% of the recess depth (Document 1; Page 4, Lines, 29-32) and the depth of the lateral recess is less than 10 mm (Tagashira; Para. [0013]) as the circumferential recess depth is 8 to 10 mm and the lateral recess depth is less than that. This would make the connection surface depth less than 4 mm, which overlaps the claimed range of less than 2 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 21, m modified Tagashira teaches the depth of the connection surface is 20% to 40% of the recess depth (Document 1; Page 4, Lines, 29-32) and the depth of the lateral recess is less than 10 mm (Tagashira; Para. [0013]) as the circumferential recess depth is 8 to 10 mm and the lateral recess depth is less than that. This would make the connection surface depth less than 4 mm, which overlaps the claimed range of greater than 0.2 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 22, modified Tagashira teaches the depth of the connection surface is 20% to 40% of the recess depth (Document 1; Page 4, Lines, 29-32) and the depth of the lateral recess is less than 10 mm (Tagashira; Para. [0013]) as the circumferential recess depth is 8 to 10 mm and the lateral recess depth is less than that. This would make the connection surface depth less than 4 mm, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.4 to 1.5 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 23, modified Tagashira teaches that the connection surface is connected to the first lateral wall at a height that is related to the groove depth (Document 1; Page. 4, Lines 24-32) and Schildhauer teaches that the depth of the lateral grooves consistently increases from the center of the tire towards the outsides (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 14; Para. [0006]). Since the depth of the point where the connection surface and the first lateral wall meet taught by Suzuki is dependent on the groove depth (Para. [0026]), when the lateral grooves are modified to have a consistently increasing depth across from the inside of the tire to the outside, the depth at where the connection surface is joined to the first lateral wall will also increase along the extent of the first lateral wall.
Regarding claim 25, modified Tagashira teaches that the angle between the connecting surface tangent line and the first lateral wall tangent line is less than 70 degrees (Fukuda; Para. [0066]). Fukuda does not expressly disclose a value of greater between 30 and 75 degrees; however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the angle between the connecting surface tangent line and the first lateral wall tangent line within the claimed range since Fukuda discloses the angle between the connecting surface tangent line and the first lateral wall tangent line as less than 70 degrees (Para. [0066]), said range overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 26, Tagashira teaches that the height of the blocks is 8 to 10 mm (Para. [0013]) and that the length is less than 16 mm (Para. [0019]). As the blocks are close to square, the width can be similar to the length. Using these numbers for height, length and width of the blocks, the blocks will have a volume of 2,560 mm3 or less. The connection surface has a width of 2.5 mm, a length of 16 mm or less, and a depth of 4 mm or less (Document 1; Page 4, Lines, 29-32; 0.2 to 0.4 time the block height), the removed portion will have a volume of 160 mm3 or less, which for these two combinations would mean the removed portion is 6% or less of the block volume, which overlaps with the claimed range which is a prima facie case of obviousness. In order to have a connection surface length of 1 – 2.5 mm, the block length would have to be 16 mm or less. While this is within the range of 50 mm or less taught by Tagashira, it is toward the lower end. Block length, however, is mostly a factor of tire size and it is known in the art to have winter tires with block of similar lengths (Christensen; Col. 3, Lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 27, modified Tagashira teaches that the connection surface extends along the entire length of the first lateral wall (Document 1; Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 59, 61).
Regarding claim 29, modified Tagashira teaches that the depth of the lateral grooves is less than 10 mm (Para. [0013]) and that the depth where the connection surface is joined to the first lateral wall is based on the groove depth (Para [0026]), which means that the depth will increase by the same percentage that the groove depth will. Schildhauer teaches that the increase in depth of the lateral grooves towards the outside of the tire should be at least 1.5 mm (Para. [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Tagashira with Schildhauer to increase the lateral groove depth at the outside of the tire by at least 1.5 mm in order to improve water drainage (Schildhauer; Para. [0014]). Modified Tagashira does not expressly disclose that the depth of the lateral groove in the shoulder is larger than the depth of the groove in the center by 30% to 50% (less than 4 mm based on the groove depth taught by the modified Tagashira); however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the amount that the shoulder lateral grooves are greater than the center lateral grooves within the claimed range since modified Tagashira discloses the increase in groove depth from the center of the tire towards the outside as greater than 1.5 mm (Para. [0014])), said range overlapping the claimed range. Since the depth where the connection surface is joined to the first lateral wall is dependent on the groove depth, this depth should also increase by the same percentage.
Regarding claim 34, Tagashira teaches that the blocks are made at least in the central region of the tread (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. B).
Regarding claim 36, Tagashira teaches that the plurality of blocks comprises blocks in a shoulder region and a central region (Fig. 2) and each block has a front edge delimited by the first lateral wall.
Regarding claim 37, modified Tagashira teaches that the connection surface (Document 1; Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 51) have a first section (Fig. 6; lower half of connection surface) joined to the lateral wall and a second section (Fig. 6, upper half of connection surface) joined to the tread surface.
Regarding claim 38, modified Tagashira teaches that the connection surfaces are arranged at the block edges (Document 1, Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 51).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagashira (US Patent No. 5,733,650) in view of Document 1 (GB 1549347 A), Fukuda (US 2015/0239296 A1), Schildhauer (DE 10311430 A1), and Christensen (US Patent No. 5,733,650 – of Record) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Fischer (DE 10-2009-003565 A1 -of Record).
Regarding claim 33, modified Tagashira does not teach the radius of curvature of the connection surface.
In an analogous art, Fischer teaches a connection surface (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 23) that has a radius of curvature (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. R1) of 1 mm to 5 mm (Para. [0005]). Fischer does not expressly disclose a value of 2 mm to 6 mm; however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the radius of curvature of the connection surface within the claimed range since Fischer discloses the radius of curvature of the connection surface as between 1 mm and 5 mm (Para. [0005]), said range overlapping the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Tagashira with Fischer to have the radius of curvature of the connection surface be between 1 mm and 5 mm. This modification will enable good road contact during handling (Fischer; Para. [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 39 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Tagashira (JP H09-323511 A) in view of Document 1 (GB 1549347 A), Fukuda (US 2015/0239296 A1), and Schildhauer (DE 10311430 A1).
Regarding claim 39, modified Tagashira teaches all the limitations of claim 17; however, does not teach that the connection surface is made of two curved sections that have an indent formed in between them. It is the examiner’s opinion that without the improper use of hindsight or destroying the references for their intended use, it would not have been obvious to combine prior art references in the manner required, as required by claim 39.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant claims that modifying Tagashira with Document 1 would be unreasonable has that would require the block length of Tagashira to be reduced to a 16 mm block length to have a connection surface of 2.5 mm or less. This would reduce the number of sipes on the tread block which would destroy Tagashira for its intended purpose of improving snow/ice grip. Tagashira claims that the preferred block length is 50 mm or less (Para. [0019]) and the 16 mm block length is within this range claimed as Tagashira never mentions a minimum block length. While a 16 mm block would have less sipes present than a 50 mm block, as 16 mm is still within the preferred range of Tagashira, it is unclear why that would destroy the reference for its intended purpose. With the groove with staying the same, smaller length blocks would just create more blocks so the tire would still have an overall similar number of sipes.
Applicant also argues that the addition of Fukuda would decrease the snow grip properties of Tagashira as it would reduce block rigidity and the addition of chamfers to a tire block will decrease snow/ice performance. The reason that Fukuda has chamfers of the shape it does is to improve the performance on ice (Para. [0067], [0068]), this shows that adding chamfers to a tire does not inherently decrease snow/ice performance and can instead improve performance for winter tires.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J WEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-2664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/N.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749