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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Claims 2, 5, 7 and 9 have been cancelled. Claim 11 is a new addition. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8 and 10-11 are pending. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome the 112(d) rejections of claims 2, 7-8, 10 previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 03/10/2026.
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.
Figures: The examiner provides illustrations from the prior art with additional annotations as needed to facilitate discussion of the claim elements. Moreover, it is held that guidance as provided by the figures is sufficient to enable public possession of an inventive concept. That is, an enabling picture may be used to reject claims directed to an article to include: anticipating claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.The examiner provides marked-up reproductions of applicable drawings (as needed) to facilitate discussion of the prior art.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al. (US 2019/0359006 A1 – of record, used as an English translation for WO 2017141913 A1 – of record), in view of Suga (US 2016/0009141 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Uemura discloses a pneumatic tire tread. The tire tread being configured to have a plurality of circumferential main grooves 9 extending in a tire circumferential direction; a plurality of rows of ribs 10 defined by the plurality of main grooves; and sipes 11 extending in a tire width direction. The sipe comprising at least one end 11C communicating with the main groove and an edge on a leading side 11A and an edge on a trailing side 11B, the edges facing each other, a chamfered portion 12A, 12B shorter than a sipe length of the sipe being formed in each of the edge on the leading side and the edge on the trailing side, a non-chamfered region 13A, 13B where other chamfered portions are not present being provided in a portion of the sipe facing each of the chamfered portions. The plurality of rows of ribs includes a pair of intermediate ribs each disposed to not overlap a tire equatorial plane CL in the tire width direction, the intermediate ribs are positioned between the tire equatorial plane and outermost main grooves of the plurality of main grooves on either side from the tire equatorial plane, and the sipe in each intermediate rib of the pair of intermediate ribs communicates with only one of the main grooves defining the intermediate ribs and terminates within the each intermediate rib, see at least FIGS 1-3.
Uemura does not explicitly disclose a profile line defining the road contact surface of the ribs.
Suga discloses a pneumatic tire tread. The tire tread is configured to have a plurality of circumferential main grooves 52, 54, 56 extending in a tire circumferential direction and a plurality of rows of ribs 60, 62, 64 defined by the plurality of main grooves. The plurality of rows of ribs are configured such that tread profile lines – (construed as a radius of curvature RR (mm)) of the land portions 60, 62, 64 pass through edge ends of both sides where the circumferential main grooves come into contact with the land portions and are preferably formed by an arc with a curvature radius smaller than the curvature radius of a first arc shape Arc1 – (construed as a radius of curvature TR (mm)), see [0065], FIG. 4A annotated below -
PNG
media_image1.png
138
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(construed as a radius of curvature TR (mm) of an arc forming the reference tread profile line and a radius of curvature RR (mm) of an arc forming the profile line of the rib satisfying a relationship of TR>RR).
And the plurality of rows of ribs include a center rib 60 disposed on the equatorial plane CL of the tire. Where, intermediate ribs 62, 64 are disposed adjacent the center rib each having the same protruding amount X of 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm, see at least [0072], [0064], FIG. 3 – (construed as at least two adjacent rows of ribs of the plurality of rows of ribs have a same maximum projection amount D with respect to the reference tread profile line, and one rib of the at least two adjacent rows of ribs is a center rib located on the tire equatorial plane).
One of ordinary skill would envision such a protruding tire tread ribs since Suga discloses doing so contributes to improving steering stability (turning ability and straight-running ability) and uneven wear resistance, see [0072] – [0073] of which Uemura is concerned. And one would expect success in doing so as Suga further discloses its protruding ground contact face is suitable for tread patterns with wide rib land portions, see [0031]. It being considered, both Suga (245/40ZR18) and Uemura (245/40R19) are similarly sized having similar tread patterns of three circumferentially extending rib portions axially bounded by two shoulder portions.
Additionally, as Uemura discloses the chamfered portions on both the leading side and the trailing side of the sipe are disposed straddling a center of the rib, see at least FIG. 3, and Suga discloses the protruding portion has a maximum projection at the center of the ribs, see at least [0065], FIG. 4A. Then one would readily envision forming the chamfered sipes such that: the chamfered portions on both the leading side and the trailing side of the sipe being disposed straddling a maximum projection position of the profile line of the rib.
As to “a maximum projection amount D (mm) of the rib with respect to the reference tread profile line and a maximum width W (mm) of the chamfered portion disposed straddling the maximum projection position satisfying a relationship of 0.05 mm2 < W x D < 1.50 mm2.”
As previously discussed, Suga discloses a protrusion amount X – (construed as D) of a rib is from 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm. And Uemura discloses a chamfer portion width W1 – (construed as a maximum width (mm) of the chamfered portion) is 0.8 to 5.0 times the width W of the sipe 11, see [0050]. And where the width W of the sipe is not greater than 1.5 mm, see [0033]. Thus, for a sipe width of 0.75 mm and chamfer width of 0.8(sipe width) gives the chamfered portion having a maximum width of 0.6 mm to 3.75 mm. It is readily seen that for a reasonable protrusion amount X(D) of 0.5 mm and chamfer width of 0.6 mm (W), that W (mm) x D (mm) ≈ 0.3 mm2, which meets the claimed range.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uemura’s ground contacting portion of the tread to have protruding portions as taught by Suga to provide the tire with the aforementioned benefits. Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the protruding amount defined by the radii of curvature of the reference tread profile and arc forming the profile line of the rib to with the maximum width of the chamfered portion that corresponds to the claimed range to provide the aforementioned benefits. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 3-4, 6, 8, 10, modified Uemura discloses the sipe is inclined with respect to the tire circumferential direction, see Uemura FIGS 3-4; and an inclination angle θ on an acute angle side of the sipe with respect to the tire circumferential direction is from 40° to 80°, see Uemura [0011]; and at least a portion of the sipe is curved or bent in a plan view, see Uemura FIGS 3-4.
Regarding claim 11, as previously discussed, modified Uemura discloses the width W of the sipe is not greater than 1.5 mm, see [0033] – (construed as and overlaps a width of the sipe is from 1.0 mm to 1.5 mm); and the maximum width W (mm) of the chamfered portion is from 0.8 to 5.0 times the width of the sipe, see [0050]. It is readily seen for a reasonable sipe width of 0.75 mm and chamfered portion of 0.8(sipe width) that a maximum width W (mm) of the chamfered portion is 0.6 mm – (construed as and overlaps the maximum width W (mm) of the chamfered portion is from 0.5 to 0.75 mm). Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the sipe width and chamfered portion width of Uemura that corresponds to the claimed range to provide as Uemura provides a reasonable pathway to doing so which contributes to a pneumatic tire capable of providing good improvement of steering stability performance on dry road surfaces and improvement of steering stability performance on wet road surfaces in a compatible manner, and additionally capable of enhancing noise performance by devising a chamfer shape of a sipe, see [0004]. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 11 has been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues that: Based on the assertions in the Office Action when using the claimed sipe widths, the chamfered portion width of the combination should only be in a range of 0.8 mm to 7.5 mm. Because this result excludes what is claimed, the skilled artisan would have obviously arrived at something materially different than what is claimed and could not have found the claim limitations obvious. Applicant acknowledges that Uemura states that the chamfer width is "preferably" 0.8 to 5.0 times the sipe width. However, Uemura also states that steering stability is insufficiently improved when the chamfer width is less than 0.8 times the sipe width ([0050]). Accordingly, the skilled artisan would obviously not use any multiple less than 0.8 times despite the "preferably" phrasing because otherwise the improved steering stability, which is the purpose of the Uemura invention (see Uemura at [0001]) would not be obtained as explicitly described by Uemura.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Uemura explicitly discloses the sipe is less than 1.5 mm and does not restrict the sipe width to any minimum. Thus, as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 11, a sipe width of 0.75 mm and a chamfer maximum width of 0.75(0.8) = 0.6 mm meets the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights