Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/641,292

TIRE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 08, 2022
Examiner
BOSS, WENDY LYNN
Art Unit
1749
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Bridgestone Corporation
OA Round
4 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
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 . Response to Amendment The Amendment filed January 2, 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 16, 2025. Claims 1, 4, 5 and 11 remain pending in the application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 1, 4, 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0250989 (Bode et al.) in view of JP 2013-133080 (Nakamura et al.), machine translation previously provided, further in view of DE 102024214546 (Behr), machine translation provided. Regarding claim 1, Bode discloses a tire having a tread portion in which a plurality of linear circumferential grooves extending in tire circumferential direction are formed, wherein The circumferential grooves include: a first circumferential groove (130); a second circumferential groove (120) formed in inside when mounted to a vehicle than the first circumferential groove; and a third circumferential groove (110) formed in inside when mounted to the vehicle than the second circumferential groove (see Figure 1), The second circumferential groove (120) and the third circumferential groove (110) are formed in inside when mounted to the vehicle than a tire equatorial line (see Figure 1), wherein The tread portion is provided with: an outside center land portion (502) provided between the first circumferential groove (130) and the second circumferential groove (120) (see Figure 1); An inside center land portion (501) provided between the second circumferential groove (120) and the third circumferential groove (110) (see Figure 1); An inside shoulder land portion (401) formed in inside when mounted to the vehicle than the third circumferential groove (110) (see Figure 1), wherein A plurality of linear width direction sipes (602) inclined with respect to the tire width direction along the tire width direction are formed in the outside center land portion (502) and the inside center land portion (501) (see Figure 1, paragraph 0031), and The inside shoulder land portion (401) has an inside slick portion in which a surface of the inside shoulder land portion is slick in a grounding region of the inside shoulder land portion in a state where normal load is loaded on the tire (see Figure 1, showing slick portion (non-grooved area) on land portion 401). Bode also discloses that the outside center land portion (502) includes a center slick portion in which a surface of the outside center land portion is slick in an area of outside of the outside center land portion when mounted to the vehicle (see Figure 1, showing slick portion (non-grooved area) on land portion 502). Bode also discloses that the tread portion is provided with an outside shoulder land portion (402) formed in outside when mounted to the vehicle than the first circumferential groove (130) (see Figure 1), The outside shoulder land portion (402) includes an outside slick portion in which a surface of the outside shoulder land portion is slick in an inside area of the outside shoulder land portion when mounted to the vehicle (see Figure 1, showing slick portion (non-grooved area) on land portion 402), and the sipe portion is linear along the tire width direction (see Figure 1). Bode does not disclose an inclined portion inclined toward an inside in the tire radial direction from a tread surface side of the inside center land portion formed at a peripheral edge portion of each of the linear width direction sipes; however, Nakamura discloses providing sipes with inclined (chamfered) portions 38A, 38B along the length of linear width direction closed sipes, including peripheral edge portions (see Figure 2, paragraph 0034 machine translation). The inclined portions of Nakamura communicate with a sipe portion of each of the width direction sipes (see Figure 2, paragraph 0034 machine translation). Nakamura teaches that providing closed sipes with inclined (chamfered) portions it is possible to suppress chunks such as chipping and peeling of rubber (see paragraph 0047 machine translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the entire length of the closed linear width direction sipes of Bode, including the peripheral edge portion, with inclined (chamfered) portions in order to suppress chunks such as chipping and peeling of rubber, as taught by Nakamura. Bode also discloses that the outside shoulder land portion has a first groove wall portion forming the first circumferential groove (see Figure 1), The outside center land portion has a second groove wall portion forming the second circumferential groove (see Figure 1), The inside center land portion has a third groove wall portion forming the third circumferential groove (see Figure 1). Bode also discloses that the first groove wall portion has a first outer wall and a first inner wall (see Figure 1), The second groove wall portion has a first outer wall and a first inner wall (see Figure 1), The third groove wall portion has a third outer wall and a third inner wall (see Figure 1), wherein While Bode does not designate a mounting direction of the tire, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the tire could be oriented in one of two directions when mounted on a vehicle. The tire of Bode is capable of being mounted in either an inside or an outside direction on a vehicle and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select one of the two directions of mounting. Bode also does not disclose that the first outer wall, the second outer wall and the third outer wall incline toward inside in the tire radial direction toward inside in the tire radial direction to approach inside when mounted to the vehicle, the first outer wall is inclined more than the second outer wall, the second outer wall is inclined more than the third outer wall, wherein the first inner wall, the second inner wall and the third inner wall incline toward inside in the tire radial direction to approach outside when mounted to the vehicle, and only the inclination angles of the outer walls vary; however, Behr discloses an analogous tire provided with three circumferential grooves, wherein the first outer wall is inclined more than the second outer wall, the second outer wall is inclined more than the third outer wall, the first inner wall, the second inner wall and the third inner wall incline toward inside in the tire radial direction to approach outside when mounted to the vehicle, and only the inclination angles of the outer walls vary (see Figure 1, paragraph 0005). Behr teaches that providing outer groove walls with inclinations that decrease from the outer side to the inner side and inclinations of the inner walls are the same solves the conflict of dry handling properties with aquaplaning properties (see paragraphs 0004-0007, Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to choose one of the two mounting positions of the Bode tire and configure the circumferential grooves with outer groove walls with inclinations that decrease from the outer side to the inner side and the inclinations of the inner walls that are the same, in order to solve the conflict of dry handling properties with aquaplaning properties as taught by Behr. Further, the asymmetric example shown in Figure 1 of Behr shows the side with a wider shoulder labeled as the outer side, which would have motivated one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to position Bode’s analogous wider shoulder portion 402 in an outer mounting position, and the narrower shoulder portion 401 in an inner mounting position, yielding a tire as claimed. Regarding claim 4, Bode also discloses a plurality of lug grooves (601) inclined with respect to the tire width direction along the tire width direction formed in the outside shoulder land portion (see Figure 1). Regarding claims 5 and 11, Bode also discloses that one end of the width direction sipe (602) terminates within the outside center land portion (502); The width direction sipe (602) is provided with: A first width direction groove wall portion extending in the tire width direction; A second width direction groove wall portion extending in the tire width direction and extending from the first width direction groove wall portion to a center side of the outside center land portion (502) (see Figure 1, the sipes would inherently have a first and second groove wall); and A linear circumferential groove wall portion extending from the first width direction groove wall portion to the second width direction groove wall portion (see Figure 1, a linear circumferential groove wall would be formed at end where sipe 602 terminates in land portion 502). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments 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 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 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 /KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 08, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 31, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 17, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 31, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 02, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 03, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 02, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 10, 2026
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

5-6
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