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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15, 17 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US Pub. No. 2013/0228261) in view of Parr (US Pub. No. 2015/0004335), Matsumoto (US Pub. No. 2013/0263992) and Kikuchi (JP08-318717; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread portion 2, a sidewall portion 3, and a bead portion 4 (paragraph [0026]; figure 2), a serration region (portion of annular decoration band 8 which is uninterrupted around the circumference of the tire), the serration region being provided on the sidewall and formed by arranging a plurality of ridges 8a, the serration region forming a continuous band around a circumference of the tire with a constant height in a tire radial direction the plurality of ridges protruding from a base surface in parallel to each other and periodically, where the ridges may extend in a straight line parallel to or at a predetermined angle a with respect to a meridional line M of the tire (overlapping the claimed range of the angle θc) (paragraph [0027]; figures 1-2 and 4). Nakamura does not specifically limit the configuration of the serration region. In a tire similarly directed to serrated sidewall regions, Parr teaches a pitch between the surface features can be between about 0.300 and 1.200 mm, overlapping the claimed range, and with a specific embodiment having a pitch of 0.708 mm, just outside of the claimed range (paragraph [0072]), and region 110 surrounded by the serration region (paragraph [0051]; figure 1). Additionally, Parr teaches a range of depth for the elements of between 0.025 and 0.305 mm (paragraph [0047]), a range of width for the elements of between 0.025 and 0.508 mm (paragraph [0048]), and a spacing between the elements of between 0.025 and 0.609 mm (paragraph [0049]). Applicant’s specification indicates that Lr is equal to L1 + L2 + L3 + L4 (see applicant’s published application at paragraph [0074] and figure 4), so for an embodiment having a shape as in figure 4B or 4C of Parr, this is substantially equal to 2 * depth + width + spacing. Accordingly, Parr teaches a range of Lr of 0.1 mm ((2*0.025)+0.025+0.025) to 1.727 mm (2*0.305+0.508+0.609), and therefor ratio ranges for Lr/Lb of 0.083 (0.1/1.2) to 5.76 (1.727/0.3), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a length Lb and ratio Lr/Lb as taught by Parr for the serration region of the tire of Nakamura in order to appropriately create a visual effect (see Parr at paragraph [0002]). Nakamura does not specifically disclose that each of the ridges has a curved portion whose curvature changes near each of both end portions of respective ridges, where the center portion is continuously curved along the 80% length. Matsumoto teaches using continuously curving ridges 10 (paragraph [0055; figure 4), where the ridges can have reversely curved arc-shaped parts to have an s-shaped configuration (paragraph [0055]), the ridges having an angle θ1 with respect to the radial direction of not more than 45°, preferably not more than 30°, and preferably not less than 10° (paragraph [0039]). Kikuchi teaches ridges with an intermediate linear portion, and radially outer and inner end portions with curvature, where the ratio of the area of the intermediate section to the total area is preferably from 55 to 95% (overlapping the claimed range of 80% of the length of the center portion of the ridges) (machine translation at page 2, last paragraph – page 3, seventh paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use curved ridges with an s-shape as taught by Matsumoto, where the transition is at the outer 10% length of each side of the ridge as taught by Kikuchi in the tire of Nakamura (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread portion 2, a sidewall portion 3, and a bead portion 4 (paragraph [0026]; figure 2), a serration region (portion of annular decoration band 8 which is uninterrupted around the circumference of the tire), the serration region being provided on the sidewall and formed by arranging a plurality of ridges 8a, the serration region forming a continuous band around a circumference of the tire with a constant height in a tire radial direction the plurality of ridges protruding from a base surface in parallel to each other and periodically, where the ridges may extend in a straight line parallel to or at a predetermined angle a with respect to a meridional line M of the tire (overlapping the claimed range of the angle θc) (paragraph [0027]; figures 1-2 and 4). Further, Nakamura teaches using recess portions on a top surface of ridges (figure 4), where the sidewall thickness is approximately between 1.5 and 3.0 mm (paragraph [0026]), the concavity has a depth of 0.4 mm (paragraph [0040]), and the ridges 8a are about halfway between the bottom of the concavity and the top of the sidewall (figure 4), such resulting in claimed H1 range of 1.1 (1.5-0.4) to (3.0-0.4) 2.6 mm, and H2 range of (1.5-0.2) 1.3 to (3.0-0.2) 2.8 mm, and therefore H2/H1 range of about 1.1 (2.8/2.6) to 1.2 (1.3/1.1), overlapping the claimed range. Nakamura does not specifically limit the configuration of the serration region. In a tire similarly directed to serrated sidewall regions, Parr teaches a pitch between the surface features can be between about 0.300 and 1.200 mm, overlapping the claimed range, and with a specific embodiment having a pitch of 0.708 mm, just outside of the claimed range (paragraph [0072]), and region 110 surrounded by the serration region (paragraph [0051]; figure 1). Additionally, Parr teaches a range of depth for the elements of between 0.025 and 0.305 mm (paragraph [0047]), a range of width for the elements of between 0.025 and 0.508 mm (paragraph [0048]), and a spacing between the elements of between 0.025 and 0.609 mm (paragraph [0049]). Applicant’s specification indicates that Lr is equal to L1 + L2 + L3 + L4 (see applicant’s published application at paragraph [0074] and figure 4), so for an embodiment having a shape as in figure 4B or 4C of Parr, this is substantially equal to 2 * depth + width + spacing. Accordingly, Parr teaches a range of Lr of 0.1 mm ((2*0.025)+0.025+0.025) to 1.727 mm (2*0.305+0.508+0.609), and therefor ratio ranges for Lr/Lb of 0.083 (0.1/1.2) to 5.76 (1.727/0.3), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a length Lb and ratio Lr/Lb as taught by Parr in the serration region of the tire of Nakamura in order to appropriately create a visual effect (see Parr at paragraph [0002]). Further, it is noted that applicant has not demonstrated unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims for H2/H1, at least for the reason that there are no embodiments below the claimed range of this parameter, and there is only one embodiment with this parameter above the claimed range, and that embodiment has similar properties to embodiments within the claimed range. Nakamura does not specifically disclose that each of the ridges has a curved portion whose curvature changes near each of both end portions of respective ridges, where the center portion is continuously curved along the 80% length. Matsumoto teaches using continuously curving ridges 10 (paragraph [0055; figure 4), where the ridges can have reversely curved arc-shaped parts to have an s-shaped configuration (paragraph [0055]), the ridges having an angle θ1 with respect to the radial direction of not more than 45°, preferably not more than 30°, and preferably not less than 10° (paragraph [0039]). Kikuchi teaches ridges with an intermediate linear portion, and radially outer and inner end portions with curvature, where the ratio of the area of the intermediate section to the total area is preferably from 55 to 95% (overlapping the claimed range of 80% of the length of the center portion of the ridges) (machine translation at page 2, last paragraph – page 3, seventh paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use curved ridges with an s-shape as taught by Matsumoto, where the transition is at the outer 10% length of each side of the ridge as taught by Kikuchi in the tire of Nakamura (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 21, Nakamura teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread portion 2, a sidewall portion 3, and a bead portion 4 (paragraph [0026]; figure 2), a serration region (portion of annular decoration band 8 which is uninterrupted around the circumference of the tire), the serration region being provided on the sidewall and formed by arranging a plurality of ridges 8a, the serration region forming a continuous band around a circumference of the tire with a constant height in a tire radial direction the plurality of ridges protruding from a base surface in parallel to each other and periodically, where the ridges may extend in a curve parallel to each other, where the angle may be parallel to or at a predetermined angle a with respect to a meridional line M of the tire (overlapping the claimed range of the angle θc) (paragraph [0027]; figures 1-2 and 4). Nakamura does not specifically limit the configuration of the serration region. In a tire similarly directed to serrated sidewall regions, Parr teaches a pitch between the surface features can be between about 0.300 and 1.200 mm, overlapping the claimed range, and with a specific embodiment having a pitch of 0.708 mm, just outside of the claimed range (paragraph [0072]), and region 110 surrounded by the serration region (paragraph [0051]; figure 1). Additionally, Parr teaches a range of depth for the elements of between 0.025 and 0.305 mm (paragraph [0047]), a range of width for the elements of between 0.025 and 0.508 mm (paragraph [0048]), and a spacing between the elements of between 0.025 and 0.609 mm (paragraph [0049]). Applicant’s specification indicates that Lr is equal to L1 + L2 + L3 + L4 (see applicant’s published application at paragraph [0074] and figure 4), so for an embodiment having a shape as in figure 4B or 4C of Parr, this is substantially equal to 2 * depth + width + spacing. Accordingly, Parr teaches a range of Lr of 0.1 mm ((2*0.025)+0.025+0.025) to 1.727 mm (2*0.305+0.508+0.609), and therefor ratio ranges for Lr/Lb of 0.083 (0.1/1.2) to 5.76 (1.727/0.3), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a length Lb and ratio Lr/Lb as taught by Parr for the serration region of the tire of Nakamura in order to appropriately create a visual effect (see Parr at paragraph [0002]). Nakamura does not specifically disclose that each of the ridges has a curved portion whose curvature changes near each of both end portions of respective ridges, where the center portion is continuously curved along the 80% length. Matsumoto teaches using continuously curving ridges 10 (paragraph [0055; figure 4), where the ridges can have reversely curved arc-shaped parts to have an s-shaped configuration (paragraph [0055]), the ridges having an angle θ1 with respect to the radial direction of not more than 45°, preferably not more than 30°, and preferably not less than 10° (paragraph [0039]). Kikuchi teaches ridges with an intermediate linear portion, and radially outer and inner end portions with curvature, where the ratio of the area of the intermediate section to the total area is preferably from 55 to 95% (overlapping the claimed range of 80% of the length of the center portion of the ridges) (machine translation at page 2, last paragraph – page 3, seventh paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use curved ridges with an s-shape as taught by Matsumoto, where the transition is at the outer 10% length of each side of the ridge as taught by Kikuchi in the tire of Nakamura (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 22, Nakamura teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread portion 2, a sidewall portion 3, and a bead portion 4 (paragraph [0026]; figure 2), a serration region (portion of annular decoration band 8 which is uninterrupted around the circumference of the tire), the serration region being provided on the sidewall and formed by arranging a plurality of ridges 8a, the serration region forming a continuous band around a circumference of the tire with a constant height in a tire radial direction the plurality of ridges protruding from a base surface in parallel to each other and periodically, where the ridges may extend in a curve parallel to each other, where the angle may be parallel to or at a predetermined angle a with respect to a meridional line M of the tire (overlapping the claimed range of the angle θc) (paragraph [0027]; figures 1-2 and 4). Further, Nakamura teaches using recess portions on a top surface of ridges (figure 4), where the sidewall thickness is approximately between 1.5 and 3.0 mm (paragraph [0026]), the concavity has a depth of 0.4 mm (paragraph [0040]), and the ridges 8a are about halfway between the bottom of the concavity and the top of the sidewall (figure 4), such resulting in claimed H1 range of 1.1 (1.5-0.4) to (3.0-0.4) 2.6 mm, and H2 range of (1.5-0.2) 1.3 to (3.0-0.2) 2.8 mm, and therefore H2/H1 range of about 1.1 (2.8/2.6) to 1.2 (1.3/1.1), overlapping the claimed range. Nakamura does not specifically limit the configuration of the serration region. In a tire similarly directed to serrated sidewall regions, Parr teaches a pitch between the surface features can be between about 0.300 and 1.200 mm, overlapping the claimed range, and with a specific embodiment having a pitch of 0.708 mm, just outside of the claimed range (paragraph [0072]), and region 110 surrounded by the serration region (paragraph [0051]; figure 1). Additionally, Parr teaches a range of depth for the elements of between 0.025 and 0.305 mm (paragraph [0047]), a range of width for the elements of between 0.025 and 0.508 mm (paragraph [0048]), and a spacing between the elements of between 0.025 and 0.609 mm (paragraph [0049]). Applicant’s specification indicates that Lr is equal to L1 + L2 + L3 + L4 (see applicant’s published application at paragraph [0074] and figure 4), so for an embodiment having a shape as in figure 4B or 4C of Parr, this is substantially equal to 2 * depth + width + spacing. Accordingly, Parr teaches a range of Lr of 0.1 mm ((2*0.025)+0.025+0.025) to 1.727 mm (2*0.305+0.508+0.609), and therefor ratio ranges for Lr/Lb of 0.083 (0.1/1.2) to 5.76 (1.727/0.3), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a length Lb and ratio Lr/Lb as taught by Parr in the serration region of the tire of Nakamura in order to appropriately create a visual effect (see Parr at paragraph [0002]). Further, it is noted that applicant has not demonstrated unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims for H2/H1, at least for the reason that there are no embodiments below the claimed range of this parameter, and there is only one embodiment with this parameter above the claimed range, and that embodiment has similar properties to embodiments within the claimed range. Nakamura does not specifically disclose that each of the ridges has a curved portion whose curvature changes near each of both end portions of respective ridges, where the center portion is continuously curved along the 80% length. Matsumoto teaches using continuously curving ridges 10 (paragraph [0055; figure 4), where the ridges can have reversely curved arc-shaped parts to have an s-shaped configuration (paragraph [0055]), the ridges having an angle θ1 with respect to the radial direction of not more than 45°, preferably not more than 30°, and preferably not less than 10° (paragraph [0039]). Kikuchi teaches ridges with an intermediate linear portion, and radially outer and inner end portions with curvature, where the ratio of the area of the intermediate section to the total area is preferably from 55 to 95% (overlapping the claimed range of 80% of the length of the center portion of the ridges) (machine translation at page 2, last paragraph – page 3, seventh paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use curved ridges with an s-shape as taught by Matsumoto, where the transition is at the outer 10% length of each side of the ridge as taught by Kikuchi in the tire of Nakamura (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Parr teaches a spacing between the elements of between 0.025 and 0.609 mm (paragraph [0049]; figure 7), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, using the values set forth above, Parr teaches a range of La/Lb of 0.021 (0.025/1.200) to 2 (0.609/0.300), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Parr teaches a range of depth for the elements of between 0.025 and 0.305 mm (paragraph [0047]), a range of width for the elements of between 0.025 and 0.508 mm (paragraph [0048]), and a spacing between the elements of between 0.025 and 0.609 mm (paragraph [0049]). Applicant’s specification indicates that Lr is equal to L1 + L2 + L3 + L4 (see applicant’s published application at paragraph [0068] and figure 7), so for an embodiment having a shape as in figure 4B or 4C of Parr, this is substantially equal to 2 * depth + width + spacing. Accordingly, Parr teaches a range of Lr of 0.1 mm ((2*0.025)+0.025+0.025) to 1.727 mm (2*0.305+0.508+0.609), and therefor ratio ranges for Lr/Lb of 0.083 (0.1/1.2) to 5.76 (1.727/0.3), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura teaches a specific embodiment having 10 recesses on top of a protrusion 9, where the recesses are wider than the peaks within the protrusion (figure 4), such necessarily resulting in widths of less than 0.1 and more than 0.05 for W2/W1 and W3/W1, thus falling within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura is not particularly limiting with respect to the concavity depth and the height of the peaks next to the concavity, and teaches a specific embodiment having a concavity depth of 0.4 mm (paragraph [0040]) and teaches or suggests a specific embodiment where the difference in height between the peaks and concavities is about half of the depth of the concavity (figure 4), resulting in a specific embodiment with a difference between H1 and H3 of about 0.2 mm. This suggests that other embodiments could have a difference between H1 and H3 of similar amounts, including within the claimed range of 0.03 to 0.15 mm. Further, it is noted that applicant has not established unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims for difference between H1 and H3, because no embodiments were created with this value above or below the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura teaches a specific embodiment where the ratio of (H2-H1)/(H3-H1) is about 0.5 (figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Parr teaches that the area 110 can be a square (taken to be a flat portion with no unevenness) (paragraph [0051]), the flat portion is a straight line in a cross-sectional view along a direction orthogonal to an extension direction of the ridge (figure 1), and in order to have letters or numbers that can easily be read on the sidewall, it would have been obvious to use a length of 0.15 mm or more, because smaller letters would be extremely difficult to read.
Regarding claim 10, using the values set forth above, Parr teaches a range of RH/Lb of 0.021 (0.025/1.200) to 0.12 (0.305/0.300), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claims 11-12, Nakamura teaches a specific embodiment with LH/SH of about 0.3 and AH/SH of about 0.5 (figure 1), and regardless the positioning of the serration portion on the sidewall is an arbitrary design choice, and accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a variety of values of LH/SH, including within the claimed range of 0.2 to 0.4, as claimed in claim 27, and values of AH/SH, including within the claimed range of 0.3 to 0.5, as claimed in claim 28, as being design choice. It is further noted that the upper portion of the sidewall is closest to a person’s eyes, and hence it would be obvious to place indicia at the top of the sidewall to make the indicia easier to see.
Regarding claim 13, Parr is not particularly limiting with respect to the angle between a flat portion of the base surface and a wall surface of the ridge, but does teach an angle range between the ridge and the plane of about 50 to about 70 degrees, as well as a specific embodiment with an angle of about 60 degrees (paragraph [0071]; figures 4B-4C), these teaching together suggesting angles between a flat portion of the base surface and a wall surface of the ridge of between 50 to 70 degrees, or about 60 degrees, overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Parr teaches that surface feature 106 can be oriented vertically, i.e., at 0 degrees to the radial direction (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 15, given that the dimensions disclosed above all read on the claimed dimensions, that the embodiments set forth above would have a surface of the ridge having a hydrophilic property, because those dimensions are within the claimed ranges of applicant, and applicant’s ridges have hydrophilic property due to the dimensions.
Regarding claim 17, the embodiment set forth above has the base surface recessed from a tire profile toward a cavity side.
Regarding claim 20, Parr teaches that the ridge has a trapezoidal cross-section (figures 4A-4B).
Regarding claims 23-26, Matsumoto teaches that the center portion is continuously curved on a same side of both sides perpendicular to the extension direction (figure 4).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Parr, Matsumoto and Kikuchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato (US Pub. No. 2008/0283169).
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura does not specifically disclose the mean surface roughness of rubber on a surface of a ridge. Sato teaches using a surface roughness of from 0.4 to 1.5 micrometers for the surface of tire markings (paragraphs [0044]-[0045]), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a surface roughness as taught by Sato for the surface of the ridges of the tire of Nakamura (combined) in order to increase the visibility of the ridges (see Sato at paragraph [0045]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Parr, Matsumoto and Kikuchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mukai (US Pub. No. 2010/0300594).
Regarding claim 18, Nakamura does not specifically disclose protrusion portions extending in the circumferential direction at radially outer and inner portions with respect to the serration region. Mukai teaches providing vent lines 9A and 9B radially outside and inside a serration region (paragraphs [0044]-[0048]; figures 2-4A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide vent lines as taught by Mukai in the tire of Parr in order to allow the tire to vent during vulcanization.
Regarding claim 19, Mukai teaches a height range of the vent lines of from 0.3 to 2.0 mm (paragraph [0073]), overlapping the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Matsumoto.
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 PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 February 13, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749