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 11/12/2025. Claims 1-14 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 (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.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Koda (JP 2018-122772 A – of Record) in view of Shinzawa (JP 2018-039415 – of Record) and Sakamoto (US 2019/0232725 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Koda teaches a pneumatic tire (Para. [0023]) comprising a tread (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 1) comprising a plurality of main grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 9), a plurality of ribs (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10), and a sipe (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 12, 13, 15) extending in the width direction in a rib (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 10) that comprises one end communicating with at least one main groove (both ends communicate with the main groove as they either end in the main groove or a lug groove which communicates with the main groove). Koda also teaches that the sipe comprises a chamfered portion (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 14) where the chamfered portions do not extend across an entire ground contact width of the rib and chamfered portions on adjacent sipes open to opposing main grooves (half the chamfers open to the left-most main groove through the lug groove and the other ones open to the right-most main groove) and that the chamfers are included on alternating sipes. However, Koda does not teach that the contour line of the chamfer projects inward.
In an analogous art, Shinzawa teaches a tire with a sipe chamfer (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 12A, 12B) where the contour of the chamfer projects to the inner side (Fig. 5B, Ref. Num. OL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Koda with Shinzawa to have the chamfer project inward. This modification will increase the groove volume to improve steering stability on wet roads (Shinzawa; Para. [0042]). However, modified Koda does not teach that the rib has a profile line projecting from the tire radius of curvature.
In an analogous art, Sakamoto teaches a tire with intermediate ribs (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 52) that have a radius of curvature (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 2a) that is smaller than the radius of curvature of the tire reference line (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. S2). The maximum projection point of these ribs is located in the center of the rib (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. W52), has a maximum projection amount of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm (Para. [0070]), and has the same projection amount on both the intermediate and shoulder rib. Sakamoto states that there is no particular limitation to the shoulder maximum protruding amount and that figure 6 is an example embodiment (Para. [0074]). Sakamoto describes another embodiment where it is preferred for the intermediate and shoulder ribs to have the same maximum projection amount (Para. [0069]) which meets the limitations of the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Koda with Sakamoto to form the ribs that follow the relationship TR > RR and have a projection amount of 0.05 mm to 2.0 mm. This modification will allow the ribs to have uniform contact patch pressure (Sakamoto; Para. [0089]). Since the maximum projection point of the rib is in the center of the rib and all the chamfers extend to the center of the rib, the chamfered portion will straddle the maximum projection portion. Koda teaches that the chamfered portion has a width of 0.8 to 5 times the sipe width (Para. [0040]) and that the sipes have a width of 1.5 mm or less (Para. [0028]), which would mean the chamfer width is less than 7.5 mm and Sakamoto teaches that the maximum projection amount is 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm (Para. [0070]). This would mean that W*D would be from 0.75 mm2 to 3.75 mm2. Modified Koda does not expressly disclose a value of 0.05 to 1.50; however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure W*D within the claimed range since modified Koda discloses the chamfer width (W) as less than 7.5 mm and the maximum projection amount (D) as 0.1 to 0.5 mm, said ranges creating a range of W*D that overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Koda teaches that the chamfered portion is disposed on only one edge of the sipe (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 14).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Koda teaches that the sipe is inclined with respect to the tire circumferential direction (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 12, 13, 15).
Regarding claim 5, Koda teaches that only one end of the sipe terminates in the rib (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 12, 13, 15).
Regarding claim 6, Koda teaches that the sipe (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 12, 13, 15) is disposed in the plurality of rows of ribs (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 10).
Regarding claim 8, Koda teaches that each end of the chamfered portions are either open directly to the main groove (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 14) or open to the lug groove which is connected to the main groove. This meets the definition of both ends open to the main groove as defined in paragraph 27 of the instant application.
Claims 4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koda (JP 2018-122772 A) in view of Shinzawa (JP 2018-039415) and Sakamoto (US 2019/0232725 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 2017/0190222 A1- of Record).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, modified Koda does not teach the inclination angle of the sipes.
In an analogous art, Suzuki teaches a tire with inclined sipes (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 41) where the sipes are inclined (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. α) that is 30 to 70 degrees (Para. [0077]) to the circumferential direction, which overlaps with the claimed range of 40 to 80 degrees which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Koda with Suzuki to angle the sipes at an angle of 30 to 70 degrees. This modification will improve snow and wet performance (Suzuki; Para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 11, Koda teaches that only one end of the sipe terminates in the rib (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 12, 13, 15).
Regarding claim 12, Koda teaches that the sipe (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 12, 13, 15) is disposed in the plurality of rows of ribs (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 10).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koda (JP 2018-122722 A) in view of Shinzawa (JP 2018-039415) and Sakamoto (US 2019/0232725 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohashi (JP 2004-217058 – of Record).
Regarding claim 7, modified Koda does not teach that the sipe is bent or curved.
In an analogous art, Ohashi teaches sipes (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 3) that can be present in blocks or ribs (Para. [0007]) where the sipes are bent slightly (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Koda with Ohashi to form the sipes with a slight bend. This modification will prevent partial wear and improve ice turnability (Ohashi; Para. [0008]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koda (JP 2018-122772 A) in view of Shinzawa (JP 2018-039415) and Sakamoto (US 2019/0232725 A1) and Suzuki (US 2017/0190222 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ohashi (JP 2004-217058).
Regarding claim 13, modified Koda does not teach that the sipe is bent or curved.
In an analogous art, Ohashi teaches sipes (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 3) that can be present in blocks or ribs (Para. [0007]) where the sipes are bent slightly (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Koda with Ohashi to form the sipes with a slight bend. This modification will prevent partial wear and improve ice turnability (Ohashi; Para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 14, Koda teaches that each end of the chamfered portions are either open directly to the main groove (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 14) or open to the lug groove which is connected to the main groove. This meets the definition of both ends open to the main groove as defined in paragraph 27 of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that eliminating chamfers would decrease groove volume, which is true. However, the combination of Koda and Shinzawa is not eliminating chamfers as Koda already teaches having chamfers on only side of the sipes. The modification is modifying the chamfer surface of Koda in order to be convex. Applicant in a previous amendment stated that it would not be obvious to modify the chamfer of Koda to be convex without also adding chamfers to the other side of the sipe. If you modify a chamfer surface to be convex, the chamfer volume will be greater than a chamfer with the same surface area and a linear chamfer surface. This will increase the wet performance of a tire without sacrificing the dry performance (Shinzawa; Para. [0042]) regardless of if there are chamfers on both sides of the sipe or only one. While Shinzawa does have chamfers on both sides of their sipe, they state that you will see this increased performance if at least one of the chamfers have this convex shape. This as a whole would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that forming the chamfered surfaces of Koda with a convex inward shape would increase the wet performance of the tire without sacrificing the dry performance of the tire and it unclear how the fact that Koda only has chamfers on one side of the sipes would prevent making the chamfered surfaces convex from improving the wet performance. As the point of Koda having limited chamfers is to improve wet performance without sacrificing dry performance (Para. [0007]), performing this modification would be another way to improve the wet performance further without effecting the dry performance by adding more chamfer surface area.
Additionally, applicant argues that the modified Koda does not teach two adjacent ribs having the same maximum projection amount as Sakamoto (Fig. 6) shows the intermediate rib having a larger maximum projection amount than the shoulder rib. Sakamoto states that there is no particular limitation to the shoulder maximum protruding amount and that figure 6 is an example embodiment (Para. [0074]). Sakamoto describes another embodiment where it is preferred for the intermediate and shoulder ribs to have the same maximum projection amount (Para. [0069]). Because of this alternative embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for adjacent ribs to have the same maximum projection amount.
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