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 06/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended. Claims 2-9 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 10-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “the total length of the chamfering in the tire width direction is 20% or more of the length of the sipe in the tire width direction”, and the claim also recites “a total length of chamfering in the sipe in the tire width direction being 20% or more and less than 40% of a length of the sipe in the tire width direction” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 15 is rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because the fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 12.
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, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (US 2020/0164690 A1), in view of Fugier et al. (US 2011/0120610 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, Ota discloses a pneumatic tire suitable as a winter tire. The tire to include a tread pattern comprising circumferential and widthwise grooves which delimit block land portions, see at least [0057], [0070], [0077] – (corresponds to a pneumatic tire comprising: a plurality of circumferential main grooves extending in a tire circumferential direction; a land portion defined by the circumferential main grooves).
While Ota discloses the use of terminating sipes when the tread uses a “rib-like” pattern; it does not explicitly disclose or restrict the use of sipes when using a block tread pattern. However, sipes are a well-known and conventional tread structure suitable for extending the traction properties of the tread, of which Ota is concerned. Thus, one looking to further enhance Ota block tread pattern would look to exemplary tread patterns.
Fugier discloses a tire and tread. The tire being suitable for use under winter conditions and which gives the tire good grip on snow while at the same time having good endurance. The tire to comprise a plurality of sipes/narrow grooves 30 extending through the land portion in a tire width direction, a width LE of the sipes/narrow grooves being typically between 0.3 to 1 mm wide and by example 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm, see [0003], [0020] – (construed as and overlaps 0.4 mm or more and 1.0 mm or less); and a wide portion 40 – (construed as a chamfered portion) provided in the sipe.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As depicted in FIG. 2 (shown above), depth F of a deepest portion of the chamfered portion being smaller than a depth P of the sipe at the chamfered portion; and the chamfered portion is provided on only one side of wall surface of the sipe and is not provided on another side of wall surface of the sipe; and when a groove depth of the circumferential main groove is D, a depth of the sipe is Ds, and a depth of the chamfered portion is Dm, a relationship between depths is D > Ds > Dm; and the chamfered portion is provided on at least one of groove wall surfaces of the sipe.
PNG
media_image2.png
290
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And as depicted in FIG. 3 (shown above), a total length of the wide/chamfering portion is approximately 36% of the total length of the sipes/narrow grooves which extend completely across the block in a widthwise direction y of the tread – (construed as and overlaps a total length of chamfering in the sipe in the tire width direction being less than 70% of a length of the sipe in the tire width direction; and the total length of the chamfering in the tire width direction is 20% or more of the length of the sipe in the tire width direction; and a total length of chamfering in the sipe in the tire width direction being 20% or more and less than 40% of a length of the sipe in the tire width direction; and).
PNG
media_image3.png
883
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
And as depicted in FIG. 7 (shown above), when a width of the chamfered portion in a direction orthogonal to an extension direction of the sipe in a road contact surface of the land portion is ML, a relationship between ML and the depth Dm of the chamfered portion is ML > Dm.
One of ordinary skill would appreciate Fugier’s chamfered sipe arrangement being suitable for winter conditions and which gives the tire good grip on snow while at the same time having good endurance. As this further enhances Ota desire to provide a winter tire having a block pattern exhibits excellent basic on-ice performance and on-snow performance, see Ota [0070].
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 Ota’s block pattern to have a sipe and sipe chamfering as claimed and taught by Fugier to provide a tire suitable for winter conditions and which gives the tire good grip on snow while at the same time having good endurance.
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 portion of the sipe width and chamfering length that corresponds to the claimed ranges as Fugier teaches the ranges are suitable for providing the aforementioned benefits. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (US 2020/0164690 A1), in view of Fugier et al. (US 2011/0120610 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ota discloses a pneumatic tire suitable as a winter tire. The tire to include a tread pattern comprising circumferential and widthwise grooves which delimit block land portions, see at least [0057], [0070], [0077] – (corresponds to a pneumatic tire comprising: a plurality of circumferential main grooves extending in a tire circumferential direction; a land portion defined by the circumferential main grooves).
While Ota discloses the use of terminating sipes when the tread uses a “rib-like” pattern; it does not explicitly disclose or restrict the use of sipes when using a block tread pattern. However, sipes are a well-known and conventional tread structure suitable for extending the traction properties of the tread, of which Ota is concerned. Thus, one looking to further enhance Ota block tread pattern would look to exemplary tread patterns.
Fugier discloses a tire and tread. The tire being suitable for use under winter conditions and which gives the tire good grip on snow while at the same time having good endurance. The tire to comprise a plurality of sipes/narrow grooves 30 extending through the land portion in a tire width direction, a width LE of the sipes/narrow grooves being typically between 0.3 to 1 mm wide and by example 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm, see [0003], [0020] – (construed as and overlaps 0.4 mm or more and 1.0 mm or less); and a wide portion 40 – (construed as a chamfered portion) provided in the sipe.
PNG
media_image4.png
253
529
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As depicted in FIG. 3 (shown above), a total length of the wide/chamfering portion is substantially less than 50% of the total length of the sipes/narrow grooves which extend completely across the block in a widthwise direction y of the tread. The wide/chamfering portion being configured to not be disposed on the sipe/narrow grooves ends – (construed as and overlaps a total length of chamfering in the sipe in the tire width direction being less than 70% of a length of the sipe in the tire width direction, each end of the sipe opening to one of the circumferential main grooves, and the chamfered portion is provided at a portion of the sipe other than at both ends of the sipe and the chamfered portion is not provided at the ends of the sipe).
One of ordinary skill would appreciate Fugier’s chamfered sipe arrangement being suitable for winter conditions and which gives the tire good grip on snow while at the same time having good endurance. As this further enhances Ota desire to provide a winter tire having a block pattern exhibits excellent basic on-ice performance and on-snow performance, see Ota [0070].
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 Ota’s block pattern to have a sipe and sipe chamfering as claimed and taught by Fugier to provide a tire suitable for winter conditions and which gives the tire good grip on snow while at the same time having good endurance.
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 portion of the sipe width and chamfering length that corresponds to the claimed ranges as Fugier teaches the ranges are suitable for providing the aforementioned benefits. See MPEP 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 is allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative limitations of independent claim 1 to further include dependent claim 14 with particular attention to the structural limitations of “the depth of the sipe at the chamfered portion is 3 mm or more and 6 mm or less, and the depth of the deepest portion of the chamfered portion is 1 mm or more and 2 mm or less”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have 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.
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