Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/430,142

TIRE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 11, 2021
Examiner
BOSS, WENDY LYNN
Art Unit
1749
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Bridgestone Corporation
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
51 granted / 61 resolved
+18.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
85
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
47.9%
+7.9% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 61 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 5, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 11-13 remain pending in the application. 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. Claims 1, 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004-291937 (Obara), machine translation attached, in view of US 2019/0291369 (Harrigle et al.). Regarding claims 1, Obara discloses a tire including a tread and a tire side portion continuous to the tread and positioned inside a tire radial direction of the tread comprising: A belt layer (4) provided inside the tire radial direction of the tread (see Figure 3); A carcass (3) provided inside a tire radial direction of the belt layer, wherein A plurality of longitudinal protrusion portions (7) extending along the tire radial direction and projecting outward from a surface of the tire side portion toward an outside of a tire width direction (see Figures 3 and 4); and Circumferential ridges (20) that are annular projections extending along a tire circumferential direction (see Figure 4); The plurality of longitudinal protrusion portions are provided along the tire circumferential direction (see Figure 4); The plurality of longitudinal protrusion portions (7) cross the circumferential ridges (20) (see Figure 4); A tire radial direction inner end of each of the plurality of longitudinal protrusion portions is located outside a maximum width position of the tire side portion with respect to the tire width direction (see Figure 3); A tire radial direction outer end of each of the plurality of longitudinal protrusion portions passes through a tire width direction outer end of the belt layer and is positioned outside a second straight line with respect to the tire radial direction (see annotated Figure 3 below), The second straight line is orthogonal to a first straight line parallel to the tire radial direction (see annotated Figure 3 below), and The second straight line is orthogonal to the first straight line at a position where the first straight line contacts a tire radial direction outer end of the carcass (see annotated Figure 3 below), and PNG media_image1.png 624 603 media_image1.png Greyscale The tire radial direction outer end of the each of the plurality of longitudinal protrusion portions (7) is positioned more inside in the tire radial direction than a grounding end of a ground surface in the tire width direction of the tread (13) (see Obara Figures 1 and 3 which shows the placement of the protrusions is more radially inward than the grounding end (13) of the tread, see also machine translation lines 60-70 which states that the projections are located 15-70 mm from the ground contact surface). Obara also discloses that the tire is formed by molding (see lines 25-28 machine translation); however, details regarding the divided position in the tire radial direction of the mold is not disclosed. Harrigle discloses a mold for forming pneumatic tire which includes a boundary 27a (divided position) that is positioned below the shoulder area and outside the maximum with position (see Figure 3). Harrigle also discloses that the boundary 27a corresponds to a swollen portion (parting line) (see paragraph 0042), which is located outside the maximum width position (see annotated Harrigle Figure 3 below with dashed line positioned at the maximum width position). Harrigle teaches that utilizing such a mold allows integration of off-the-shoulder tread designs (see paragraph 0004). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a mold such as that disclosed by Harrigle for the production of the Obara tire, in order to integrate of-the shoulder tread designs. Upon use of such a mold, the plurality of protrusion portions of Obara would be located outside of a divided position in the tire radial direction of a mold for molding the tire corresponding to a swollen portion, the tire radial direction inner end of each of the plurality of longitudinal portion portions would be located inside of the second straight line (shown above in Obara annotated Figure 3), and the swollen portion (parting line 27a) would be located outside of the maximum width position. PNG media_image2.png 548 506 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Obara also discloses that the belt layer includes a first crossing belt and a second crossing belt provided outside the tire radial direction of the first crossing belt (see annotated Figure 3 below), and The tire radial direction outer end of each of the plurality of longitudinal protrusion portions is located outside a tire radial direction inner end of the first crossing belt with respect to the tire radial direction (see annotated Figure 3 below). PNG media_image3.png 624 603 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 13, Obara also discloses an embodiment with a tire size 35 × 12.50R17 (see machine translation lines 130-135) (diameter of 35 inches=889 mm) yielding a circumference of 2792.88 (C=πd=π(889 mm)=2792.88 mm). Obara also discloses that the interval between the protrusions is from 10-80 mm (see machine translation lines 120-127). A tire having such a configuration would have from approximately 35 to 279 protrusion portions provided along the tire circumferential direction (2792.88/80=35 to 2792.88/10=279), which overlaps the claimed range of 160 to 220. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-212117 (Kodama et al.) in view of JP 2004-291937 (Obara) further in view of US 2019/0291369 (Harrigle et al.). Regarding claims 1, Kodama discloses a tire including a tread (2) contacting the road surface and a tire side portion (4) continuous to the tread and positioned inside a tire radial direction of the tread (see Figure 1), comprising a belt layer (7) provided inside the tire radial direction of the tread (see Figure 1); A carcass (6) provided inside a tire radial direction of the belt layer (see Figure 1), where a longitudinal protrusion portion (9) extending along the tire radial direction and projection outward from a surface of the tire side portion toward and outside of a tire width direction (see Figure 2, paragraph 0061); A plurality of the longitudinal protrusion portions are provided along a tire circumferential direction (see Figure 2, paragraph 0037 machine translation); A tire radial direction inner end of the longitudinal protrusion portions (9) is located outside a maximum width position of the tire side portion with respect to the tire width direction (see paragraphs 056-0057 and 0061 machine translation); A tire radial direction outer end of the longitudinal protrusion portions passes through a tire width direction outer end of the belt layer (7) and is positioned outside a second straight line with respect to the tire radial direction, The second straight line is orthogonal to a first straight line parallel to the tire radial direction, and The second straight line is orthogonal to the first straight line at a position where the first straight line contacts a tire radial direction outer end of the carcass (see annotated Figure 1 below). The tire radial direction outer end of the each of the plurality of longitudinal protrusion portions (9) is positioned more inside in the tire radial direction than a grounding end of a ground surface in the tire width direction of the tread (2) (see Figure 1 which shows the placement of the protrusions is more radially inward than the grounding end (T) of the tread). PNG media_image4.png 520 764 media_image4.png Greyscale Kodama does not disclose circumferential ridges that are annular projections extending along a tire circumferential direction; however, Obara discloses an analogous tire provided with a plurality of longitudinal protrusion portions (7) having circumferential ridges (20) that are annular projections extending along a tire circumferential direction and the plurality of longitudinal projections cross the circumferential ridges (see Figure 1). Obara teaches that providing the circumferential ridges between the longitudinal projections helps to increase the rigidity for improved traction (see page 3, lines 31-43 machine translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide circumferential ridges between the longitudinal protrusion portions of the Kodama tire in order to increase traction, as taught by Obara. Kodama also does not disclose that a mold is used in the manufacture of the tire; however, it is well known to produce tire using a mold (see Harrigle). Harrigle discloses a mold for forming pneumatic tire which includes a boundary 27a (divided position) that is positioned below the shoulder area and outside the maximum with position (see Figure 3). Harrigle also discloses that the boundary 27a corresponds to a swollen portion (parting line) (see paragraph 0042), which is located outside the maximum width position (see annotated Harrigle Figure 3 below with dashed line positioned at the maximum width position). Harrigle teaches that utilizing such a mold allows integration of off-the-shoulder tread designs (see paragraph 0004). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a mold such as that disclosed by Harrigle for the production of the Kodama tire, in order to integrate of-the shoulder tread designs. Upon use of such a mold, the plurality of protrusion portions of Kodama would be located outside of a divided position in the tire radial direction of a mold for molding the tire corresponding to a swollen portion, the tire radial direction inner end of each of the plurality of longitudinal portion portions would be located inside of the second straight line (shown above in Kodama annotated Figure 1), and the swollen portion (parting line 27a) would be located outside of the maximum width position. Regarding claim 2, Kodama also discloses that the belt layer includes a first crossing belt (71) and a second crossing belt (72) provided outside the tire radial direction of the first crossing belt, and The tire radial direction outer end of the longitudinal protrusion portion (11) is located outside of the tire radial direction than a tire radial direction inner end of the first crossing belt (see enlarged portion of Figure 1 below). PNG media_image5.png 493 561 media_image5.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4 and 7, Kodama also discloses that the longitudinal protrusion is provided only on inside when the tire is mounted to a vehicle (see paragraph 0018 machine translation). Regarding claim 5, 9 and 11, Kodama also discloses that a cross sectional shape of the longitudinal protrusion portion along the tire circumferential direction and the tire width direction is semicircular (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 0042-0043 which states that the protrusion portion 9 may have an S shape or a zigzag shape. In such an embodiment, the cross-sectional shape would be semicircular along a circumferential direction and a tire width direction). Regarding claim 12, upon using a mold such as that disclosed by Harrigle to form the Kodama tire as discussed above, a communication ridge communicated with a part of some of the plurality of longitudinal protrusion portions would be formed where the mold segments meet together and create parting lines (see Harrigle paragraph 0003). The communication ridges would communicate with a part of some of the plurality of longitudinal protrusion portions of Kodama, particularly on longitudinal portions that are angled or S shaped as shown in Figures 19 and 20 and a higher likelihood with a higher number of mold segments (up to 10 as disclosed at paragraph 0039 of Harrigle). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed September 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the applied references do not discloses that “the tire radial direction outer end of the each of the plurality of longitudinal protrusion portions is positioned more inside in the tire radial direction than a grounding end of a ground surface in the tire width direction of the tread”; however, it is the Examiner’s position that both the Obara and Kodama references include this claimed feature (see paragraphs 17 and 30 above). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30. 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. /WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749 /BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 11, 2021
Application Filed
Jun 02, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 06, 2023
Response Filed
Nov 08, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 13, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 14, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 05, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12485706
PNEUMATIC TYRE WITH TREAD WEAR INDICATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12472780
TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12447774
TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
Patent 12420591
TIRE TREAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12391071
TREAD BLOCK ARRANGEMENT HAVING A SIPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 19, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+9.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 61 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month