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 amendments entered on 12/08/2025 have been accepted. Claims 1 and 21 are amended. Claim 22 is new. Claims 1-22 are pending, and claims 10-11, 13, and 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the newly added limitation to claim 1, “…the one or more chamfered portions being provided at a portion of the sipe other than at both ends of the sipe”, is construed to mean that the chamfered portions are not provided at any of the ends of the sipe. In other words, when there is a single chamfered portion present, it is not located at either of the two ends of the respective sipe. This interpretation is consistent with how Applicant treats the limitation in their Remarks filed 12/08/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 is allowable. Claims 10-11, 13, and 20 previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between the separate species of Groups I and II, and of Groups III and IV, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 09/06/2023, is hereby withdrawn and claims 10-11, 13, and 20 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 8, 19-20, and 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Newly amended claim 1 requires for the one or more chamfered portions to be at a position of the sipe other than at the ends of the sipe. Claims 8 and 19 each require for “the portion where the one or more chamfered portions are provided is adjacent to the non-through lug groove”. Because the sipe and non-through lug groove are independent features, one of the ends of the sipe would necessarily be located at this connection with the non-through lug groove. The claims 8 and 19 are therefore requiring for there to be a chamfer at this end of the sipe that connects with the non-through lug groove, and is requiring for there to be no chamfer at the end of the sipe (as required in claim 1). The claim is therefore indefinite as there are competing limitations that cannot both be satisfied, rendering the scope of the claims unclear. Claim 20 is rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. As claims 8 and 19’s limitations are antithetical to what is required in claim 1, these claims will be examined as if they simply require the same chamfer placement as required in claim 1.
Claim 22 first introduces on the 2nd page line 6 “two or more chamfered portions provided in the sipe”. Line 7 then requires “…the non-through lug groove, the sipe, and the one or more chamfered portions being disposed in a row”. 2nd page line 9 then refers to a total length of the chamfered portions in the sipe “...including the two or more chamfered portions”. It is therefore unclear whether the limitation on the 2nd page line 7 is only requiring for one of the at least two chamfers to be in line with sipe and non-through lug groove, or whether all of the two or more chamfered portions are required to be in line and disposed in a row. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. Claim 22 will be examined as if line 9 refers to “…the two or more chamfered portions”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JPH05178030A, of record), in view of Ishida (US2012/0273104A1) in view of Toomatsu (JP2003170709A, of record).
Regarding claim 21, Ito teaches a tire (title) comprising a plurality of circumferential main grooves, lug grooves, a land portion defined by two of the circ grooves (an annotated Fig. 1 in included below to facilitate discussion. Two of the circumferential grooves, which both extend in the circumferential (up/down direction), are noted which define the land portion in question. Lug grooves which extend in a tire width direction are identified as well),
a non-through lug groove and a sipe are provided in the land portion (as in the annotated Fig. 1 below, the land portion clearly has a non-through lug groove and a sipe which is connected to it),
PNG
media_image1.png
589
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ito does not explicitly give the groove widths of the circumferential main grooves of 3mm or more, however these groove widths are very common within the art of tires. Ishida teaches a similar tread pattern as Ito, wherein the land portion “32” is divided between a large straight circumferential groove “23” and a narrower zigzag circumferential groove “321” [see Fig. 2]. The groove width of the large circumferential grooves such as “23” are made to have a groove width from 5mm-18mm [0040]. The groove width of the zigzag narrow groove is preferably from 0.5 to 3.5mm [0052]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the groove widths of Ito to as suggested by Ishida. One would have been motivated so as to ensure steering stability performance and the wet performance of the tire, as well as the rigidity of the land portion [0094]
Ito does not explicitly define a chamfered portion in the sipe. However, it is common in the art of tires to provide sipes with chamfered portions which are only on a portion of the sipe. Toomatsu, for example, discloses an analogous art pneumatic tire similarly tied to tread grooves. An annotated Fig. 1 is included below to facilitate discussion. Fig. 1 depicts outer land portions which have sipe intersections which extend over a circumferential groove (very similar structure as in Fig. 1 of Ito above). The sipe leads into a chamfered sipe portion, which is present on both a circumferential top and circumferential bottom part of the sipe. The chamfered portion, as in the annotated figure, has a width direction length that is equivalent for both of the top and bottom chamfered portions. The chamfered portion is only located at the portion leading to the circumferential groove, such that there is a portion of the sipe present with no groove.
PNG
media_image2.png
272
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sipe structure as identified above in Ito so as to have the chamfered portions at the intersection as in Toomatsu. One would have been motivated so as to suppress the occurrence of noise due to the rubbing of adjacent edge portions during running of the tire [0018]. And regarding the length of the chamfered portion, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Based on Fig. 1 of Toomatsu, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that a length of the chamfered portion compared to the sipe total length to be approximately 30% and well below 70%, thus suggesting the claimed limitation that the length of the chamfered portion is less than 70% of the entire length of the sipe.
With the modification as above, the sipe, chamfered sipe, and lug groove would all clearly be located on the same line. Additionally, the chamfered portion would be located on both the top and bottom of the sipe, and the lengths on both sides of the sipe would be the same.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JPH05178030A, of record) in view of Toomatsu (JP2003170709A, of record).
Regarding claim 22, Ito teaches a tire (title) comprising a plurality of circumferential main grooves, lug grooves, a land portion defined by two of the circ grooves (an annotated Fig. 1 in included below to facilitate discussion. Two of the circumferential grooves, which both extend in the circumferential (up/down direction), are noted which define the land portion in question. Lug grooves which extend in a tire width direction are identified as well),
a non-through lug groove and a sipe are provided in the land portion (as in the annotated Fig. 1 below, the land portion clearly has a non-through lug groove and a sipe which is connected to it),
PNG
media_image1.png
589
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ito does not explicitly define a chamfered portion in the sipe. However, it is common in the art of tires to provide sipes with chamfered portions which are only on a portion of the sipe. Toomatsu, for example, discloses an analogous art pneumatic tire similarly tied to tread grooves. An annotated Fig. 1 is included below to facilitate discussion. Fig. 1 depicts outer land portions which have sipe intersections which extend over a circumferential groove (very similar structure as in Fig. 1 of Ito above). The sipe leads into a chamfered sipe portion, which is present on both a circumferential top and circumferential bottom part of the sipe. The chamfered portion is only located at the portion leading to the circumferential groove, such that there is a portion of the sipe present with no groove. The circumferentially upper portion in the figure may be considered to be a first chamfered portion, while a circumferentially lower portion in the figure may be considered to be a second chamfered portion, such that there are two chamfered portions present on the sipe.
PNG
media_image2.png
272
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sipe structure as identified above in Ito so as to have the chamfered portions at the intersection as in Toomatsu. One would have been motivated so as to suppress the occurrence of noise due to the rubbing of adjacent edge portions during running of the tire [0018]. And regarding the length of the chamfered portion, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Based on Fig. 1 of Toomatsu, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that a length of the chamfered portion compared to the sipe total length to be approximately 30% and well below 68%, thus suggesting the claimed limitation that the length of the chamfered portion is less than 68% of the entire length of the sipe.
With the modification as above, the sipe, chamfered portions, and lug groove would all clearly be located on the same line. And as stated above, the chamfered portions may be considered to be the chamfer on the circumferential upper portion and the chamfer on the circumferential lower portion, such that there would be two chamfers present on the sipe that are disposed in a row with the sipe and the lug groove. Additionally/alternatively, it is noted that the claimed limitations does not specifically require for chamfered portions to be separated from one another by a non-chamfered sipe portion, such that the two chamfers would also reasonably be considered to be a relatively axially inner portion and relatively axially outer portion of the chamfer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-18 are allowed.
Claims 8 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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, such that a tire comprises a plurality of circumferential main grooves extending in a tire circumferential direction; a plurality of through lug grooves extending in a tire width direction; a land portion defined by the circumferential main grooves and the through lug grooves, the land portion being provided between one of the circumferential main grooves and another one of the circumferential main groves’ non-through lug groove provided in the land portion, the non-through lug groove extending in the tire width direction; a sipe provided in the land portion, the sipe extending in the tire width direction; and one or more chamfered portions provided in the sipe, the one or more chamfered portions being provided at a portion of the sipe other than at both ends of the sipe, the non-through lug groove, the sipe, and the one or more chamfered portions being disposed in a row, and a total length of all chamfered portions in the sipe, including the one or more chamfered portions, in the tire width direction being less than 70% 68% of a total length of the sipe in the tire width direction”.
Aoki (JPH11189013A) discloses a tire wherein a chamfered portion, sipe, and non-through lug groove are each disposed in a line. However, the chamfered portion is located at one of the ends of the sipe.
Uemura (WO2018/043580A1) discloses a tire with a sipe which can be connected with a lug groove at one end. The sipe may have chamfered portions which are formed circumferentially above/below the sipe. The chamfers may have differing axial lengths and may have a portion where this is no chamfer. Numerous embodiments are suggested by the Figures and the written specification. However, Uemura suggests that the chamfers are present on the ends of the sipe, and it would not have been obvious to modify these designs so as to have the not reaching the ends of the sipe.
Ito (JPH05178030A) in view of Toomatsu (JP2003170709A) suggests a tire wherein there is a sipe and a non-through lug groove which are in line with each other, wherein chamfers may be formed at an intersection location with the circumferential main groove. However, this would necessarily mean that the chamfers would be present at ends of the sipe, such that this could not meet the limitations of claim 1.
The claims are therefore considered to be patentably distinguished from the prior art of record. The prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, does not render obvious the cumulative limitations of independent claim 1 and are allowable for the same reasons above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in regards to claim 1 are moot, as the claim has been found to overcome the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments in Remarks frilled 12/08/2025 with respect to independent claims 21 and 22 have been considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues that the new limitation of the circumferential main groove having a width of 3mm or more overcomes the reference of Toomatsu.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While Toomatsu may have a narrower groove width of 2.5mm, it is noted that the rejection is based upon the combination of Ito with Toomatsu (and newly cited Ishida). The primary reference of Ito does not in any way limit the groove width of its circumferential main grooves, and would not have been limited to a value of less than 3mm by Toomatsu. Ishida, newly applied, suggests a similar tread pattern (much more similar to Ito than Ishida), which has a zigzag circumferential groove width overlapping with that of the claimed range. See rejections above for details.
Regarding claim 22, Applicant argues that this new claim overcomes the prior art of record because two chamfered portions are provided in the sipe.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., two chamfered portions which are spaced apart from each other, are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Where Ito in view of Toomatsu suggests a sipe with chamfered portions on both circumferential ends of the sipe, this would reasonably be considered to be the two chamfers which are present on the sipe, thus making obvious the claimed limitations. And additionally,/alternatively, it is noted that the claimed limitations does not specifically require for chamfered portions to be separated from one another by a non-chamfered sipe portion (for example), such that two chamfers would also reasonably be considered to be a relatively axially inner portion and relatively axially outer portion of the chamfer.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749