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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2, 7-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites “only one end of the sipe terminates in the rib.” However, parent claim 1 recites in part “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”. Thus the limitation of claim 2 fails to further limit the sipe orientation of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 7-8, 10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because the fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 2.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al. (US 2019/0359006 A1, used as an English translation for WO 2017141913 A1 – of record), in view of Honda (US 2017/0297377 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Uemura discloses a pneumatic tire. 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.
Honda discloses a pneumatic tire. The tire tread is configured to have a profile line defining a road contact surface of the rib comprising the sipe projecting further to an outer side in a tire radial direction than a virtual arc R1 – (construed as a reference tread profile line) in a meridian cross-sectional view.
PNG
media_image1.png
199
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A radius of curvature of the virtual arc R1 has a radius of 400 mm to 2400 mm – construed as TR (mm) of an arc forming the reference tread profile line, see [0033]. And as depicted in Fig. 2, the radius of curvature RR (mm) of an arc forming the profile line of each rib is substantially smaller than the virtual arc R1 thereby satisfying a relationship of TR > RR. One of ordinary skill would envision such a protruding tread since Honda discloses doing so contributes to improving both uneven wear resistance and wet braking performance, see [0009] of which Uemura is concerned. And one would expect success in doing so as Honda further discloses its protruding ground contact face is suitable for tread patterns having chamfered sipes, see [0032] of which Uemura is concerned.
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 Honda discloses the protruding portion has a maximum projection at the center of the ribs, see at least FIG. 2. 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.”
Honda discloses a protrusion amount t1 of a rib is from 0.2 mm to 0.9 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 [0034]. Thus, the chamfered portion has a maximum width of 1.2 mm to 7.5 mm. It being readily seen that for a reasonable protrusion amount of 0.5 mm (D) and chamfer width of 2.5 mm (W), that W (mm) x D (mm) ≈ 1.25 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 Honda to provide the tire with the aforementioned benefits. Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' with sufficient specificity”, then the claimed range is anticipated, see MPEP § 2131.03(II).
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, modified Uemura discloses only one end of the sipe terminates in the rib, see Uemura FIGS 3-4; and 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 5712705545. 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