DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s amendment of claims 1, and 12. Claims 2-9 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 10-15 are pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shida (US 2005/0241738 A1 – of record), in view of Chaen et al. (US 2001/0022209 A1 – of record), and alternatively, in view of Wada (JP 201765285 A – of record).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 14-15, Shida discloses a pneumatic tire to include the use of circumferential and/or lateral extending grooves to delimit land portions. And where the circumferentially extending grooves have widths of 2% or greater than the nominal width of the tire. Wherein for the test size of 235 mm gives a circumferential groove width of at least 4.7 mm, see [0001], [0044] – [0046]. Shida does not explicitly disclose the use of sipes. However, sipes are a well-known and conventional tread structure suitable for extending the traction properties of the tread, of which Shida is concerned. Thus, one looking to further enhance Shida tread would look to exemplary tread patterns.
Chaen discloses a pneumatic tire. The tire to include as depicted in FIG. 1: a plurality of circumferential main grooves 1 extending in a tire circumferential direction; a land portion 6, 7 defined by the circumferential main grooves and provided between the circumferential main grooves; a sipe which opens to at least one of the circumferential grooves, see [0008], FIG. 1 – (construed as a sipe extending through the land portion in a tire width direction and each end of the sipe opening to one of the circumferential main grooves); a width of the sipe being 0.7 – 1.2 mm and by example 0.7 mm, see [0013], Table 1 – (corresponds to and overlaps 0.4 mm or more and 1.0 mm or less); and an opening of the sipe to the circumferential groove is obtained by forming a width-widened part 10, 11, see [0008], FIG. 1 – (corresponds to a chamfered portion provided in the sipe). The width-widened part having a widthwise length W2 corresponding to 10% - 30% of a width W1 of the block 7. And as the sipe extends completely across the block to connect to both circumferential grooves. Then for a width W2 of 14% of W1 that a total length (2*W2) of the chamfered portion would be 28%, see FIG. 1, [0007], [0024] – (this corresponds to 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).
Additionally, it is readily seen that for a Shida circumferential groove width of at 4.7 mm and Chaen’s chamfered width 2*W2 = 8 mm, see Table 1 and FIG. 1. That a length of the chamfered portion in the tire width direction is greater than or equal to a groove width of one of the circumferential main grooves.
Additionally, as the block extends radially upward from the circumferential main groove, then the block height H (8 mm, see Table 1) is equivalent to a circumferential main groove depth “D”. It being readily seen that when a groove depth of the circumferential main groove is H (8 mm, see Table 1), a depth of the sipe is h1 (6 mm, see Table 1), and a depth of the chamfered portion is h3 (2 mm, see Table 1), a relationship between depths is H > h1 > h3, see Chaen FIG. 1.
Additionally, it is readily seen that 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 G2, a relationship between G2 (3 mm, see Table 1) and the depth h3 (2 mm, see Table 1) of the chamfered portion is G2 > h3.
Additionally, it is readily seen that a depth of a deepest portion of the chamfered portion h2 and h3 is 2 mm and a deepest portion of the sipe h1 is 6 mm, see at least, FIG. 1, Table 1.
[AltContent: textbox (Reference point of a deepest point of the chamfer at the sipe location)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It being noted, that as the sipe extends completely across the block. And has at its ends which open to the circumferential main grooves, the width widened portions. It is reasonable to conclude the width-widened part has a deepest depth which coincides with a depth of the sipe’s at its deepest portion. There being no explicit limit as to the dimensions of the deepest portion of the sipe. That is, where it begins or ends. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation afforded the examiner the aforementioned width-widened part and sipe are: (construed as a depth of a deepest portion of the chamfered portion being smaller than a depth of the sipe at the chamfered portion; and overlaps 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). Chaen discloses such a tread pattern contributes to improved steering stability on a wet road surface and resistance to hydroplaning while maintaining a wear resistance of a block, see [0002].
In the alternative: Wada discloses a pneumatic tire. The tire is configured to have a sipe 40 which extends completely across a block land portion 20A. The sipe having chamfering 41, 42, 43, 44 on its ends which connect to circumferential main grooves, and where the chamfering has a depth d1, d2 of a deepest portion of the chamfered portion being smaller than a depth D of the sipe at the chamfered portion, see figure 3. Wada further discloses such a configuration improves the wet traction property of the tread, see Table 3 results discussion.
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 the land portions of Shida to have the claimed sipe and chamfering, as taught by Chaen and in the alternative Wada to provide a tire with improved steering stability on a wet road surface and resistance to hydroplaning while maintaining a wear resistance of a block as suggested by the prior art. 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' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, modified Shida discloses the chamfered portion 11 is provided on at least one of groove wall surfaces of the sipe, see at least Chaen Table 1, FIG. 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed date have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues that: It is not clear that the width widened part of Chaen is a chamfer.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Chaen meets all the claim requirements to correspond to a chamfer and thus is construed as such. And as the applicant offers no support for its interpretation of the width widen part not being analogous to a chamfer. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues that: The cross-sectional view of FIG. 1 of Chaen depicts that the depth h3 of the width-widened part 11 is equal to the depth of the sipe 9 in that area. Because the combination of Chaen with Shida would result in something different than what is claimed, claim 1 and claims dependent thereon are non-obvious over the cited art.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees: The applicant offers a very limiting interpretation that is not reasonable for the Chaen reasonably suggests. That is, the width widen part has a deepest depth of h2, h3 and the sipe has a deepest depth of h1 as depicted in FIG. 1. Therefore, the claimed “depth of a deepest portion of the chamfered portion being smaller than a depth of the sipe at the chamfered portion”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation afforded the examiner meets the requirements of the limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 11 and 13 are directed to a pneumatic tire to include in part “ a chamfered portion provided in the sipe, 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 (claim 11)”; and having “the chamfered portion is provided on both sides in the tire circumferential direction of a groove wall surface of the sipe at a single position in the tire width direction of the sipe (claim 13)”.
The closest prior art Chaen et al. (US 2001/0022209 A1), discloses a sipe having a chamfered portion. The chamfered portion being disposed on the axial ends of the sipe. The reference however, does not teach or reasonably suggest forming the chamfered portion such that it 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; or the chamfered portion is provided on both sides in the tire circumferential direction of a groove wall surface of the sipe at a single position in the tire width direction of the sipe.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00AM--5:00 pm EST.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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