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 3/29/2024 have been accepted. Claims 17-18, 20-21, 28-32 are amended. Claim 33 is new. No claims are canceled. Claims 17-33 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 3/29/2024.
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.
Claims 17-27, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhlhoff (US2017/0050473A1, of record) in view of Niwa (JPH09249006A, of record) and in view of Duchene (US2019/0135011A1, of record).
Regarding claim 17, Muhlhoff teaches a pneumatic tire (“1”) comprising: a pair of bead cores having an annular shape (beads are positioned such that the sidewall extends between the bead and the tread [0008]. This would clearly be annular shaped as in Fig. 9. An annotated Fig. 9 is included below to facilitate discussion), a pair of side rubber members respectively provided in side surfaces of the pneumatic tire and covering the carcass ply from an outer side in a tire width direction (in the annotated Fig. 9 below, the side rubber member “3” and carcass ply are annotated as such. The carcass ply extends around both bead cores, and it is located within the side rubber wall surfaces),
PNG
media_image1.png
583
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At least one surface of the side surfaces comprising a region of a smooth surface and a two-dimensional code located within the region of the smooth surface (as in Fig. 1 for example, the codex matrix code “4”, which is a 2D code such as a QR code [0016], is provided on a region of the sidewall wherein there are no other protrusions/recesses surrounding the code; there is only the sidewall of the tire. Therefore, the region outside of this code may be considered a smooth surface) and provided with a dot pattern comprising two types of gray scale elements identifiably formed of surface irregularity with respect to the smooth surface (the code is made up of dark parts “40” and light parts “41” which may extend above or below the sidewall [0088]. The dark and light parts “40” and “41” may be considered to be two types of gray scale elements. As in Fig. 7-21, for example, the dark and light parts have surface irregularity compared to the region outside of the code, as they are projecting inward/outward compared to the surrounding surface).
Muhlhoff does not explicitly have a tire with a cross-sectional height of 80mm or less, but Muhlhoff does not limit the inventive tire to a specific cross-sectional height. As such, it would be obvious to use any specific tire size with the inventive tire of Muhlhoff in order to have a working vehicle tire to be compatible with a host of vehicles. Niwa, for example, teaches flat tires with a cross-sectional height of 90mm or less [pg. 1 of machine translation], such as a tire with a size of 225/35R17 where the height of the tire cross-section is 79mm [pg. 5 of machine translation]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to choose any type of tire size, including tire sizes which result in a cross-sectional height of 80mm or less such as 225/35R17, and thereby provide a tire suitable for vehicles. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended use support prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045)". See MPEP 2144.07.
Muhlhoff does not explicitly show one or a plurality of first ridges projecting with respect to the smooth surface. Duchene teaches a pneumatic tire which has digital code patterns “20”, such as a QR code, on the sidewall of the tire [0018]. The code “20” is surrounded by a quiet zone “26” in order to completely surround the code so as to be free of markings, indicia, or other features [0021]. The code is also surrounded by a physical frame “34” that is formed on the tire sidewall outside the quiet zone [0023]. The frame may mark the entire perimeter of the quiet zone [0023]. When the frame marks the entire perimeter of the quiet zone of a QR code as in Fig. 2, the frame would be in a square shape. The frame may surround and clearly set the designation of the external boundary of the quiet zone [0023]. The frame may be made so as to recess into the sidewall, or to protrude outboard past the sidewall surface [0027]. It is noted that in either case, the frame would “project” with respect to the smooth surface.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the code of Muhlhoff in order to have the quiet zone and frame surrounding the code, as suggested by Duchene. One would have been motivated in order to optimize the ability to read and acquire the code and to delineate and secure the quiet zone and the external boundary of said quiet zone [0021, 0023, 0027]. In modifying Muhlhoff with Duchene, the code of Muhlhoff would be surrounded by a quiet zone region and a square/rectangular frame surrounding the entire quiet zone (substantially similar to instant Fig. 4). In this frame, two first ridges would be the two sides of the frame that primarily extend in the tire radial direction (and as previously stated, project from the sidewall surface). The frame as applied to the code, as in at least Fig. 1 of Muhlhoff, would be well within the 50% width of the two-dimensional code, and as stated previously, the rest of the area would be a smooth surface as the surface of the sidewall of the tire.
Regarding claim 18, modified Muhlhoff makes obvious a tire wherein the two first ridges are two first ridges, with one provided on each of both sides of the two-dimensional code in the circumferential direction, and the two first ridges are parallel (when the square/rectangular frame around the code from Duchene is applied to Muhlhoff, there would be two first ridges, one on either circumferential side of the code. Because the shape of the frame is square/rectangular, the two first ridges would be parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 19, modified Muhlhoff makes obvious a tire wherein a separation distance from each of the two first ridges to an edge of the two dimensional code closest to each of the two first ridges is identical for the two first ridges (as in the rejection of claim 17, it would be obvious to have a quiet zone surrounding the square code and a square/rectangular frame surrounding this quiet zone to demarcate it as such. In doing so, the separation distance would be equivalent from each of the first ridges on either circumferential side of the code to the code. Additionally, this is suggested by Fig. 2 of Duchene, wherein the frame is placed at the end of the quiet zone, with the quiet zone arranged evenly on either side of the code. Alternatively, Duchene defines “L” as the circumferential length of the quiet zone and “H” as the radial height of the quiet zone. The arrangement of the quiet zone, for a typical QR code, may be 22mm by 22mm, as an example [0030]. A quiet zone at these dimensions helps allow for the code to be centered within the quiet zone. When the code is centered within said quiet zone, the separation distance from the frame (and thus the two first edges) to the edge of the code would clearly be identical).
Regarding claim 20, modified Muhlhoff makes obvious a tire wherein the first ridge has a projection height of from 0.3 to 1.0mm from the smooth surface (the frame of Duchene may protrude outboardly past the sidewall surface, and the height of the protrusion of the frame is preferably 0.2mm or more [0027]. 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)).
Regarding claim 21, modified Muhlhoff makes obvious a tire wherein the first ridges are two first ridges, one of the two first ridges are provided on either side of the code, and two second ridges extending in the tire circumferential direction and respectively connecting ends of the two first ridges on both sides in the radial direction are provided, and the code is surrounded by two first and two second ridges (as in the rejection of claim 17 above, it is obvious to provide the code of Muhlhoff (as in Fig. 1 for example) with a square/rectangular frame that extends around the entirety of the code and the associated quiet zone. In doing so, two sides of the frame would be two first ridges on either circumferential side of the code (and extending primarily in the radial direction), while the other two sides of the frame would be on either radial side of the code (and extending primarily in the circumferential direction). Given that the frame forms a complete perimeter as suggested by Duchene, the ridges would clearly all be connected to each other and would surround the code [Duchene, 0023]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Muhlhoff makes obvious a tire wherein the first ridges are parallel to each other (as stated previously, because the shape of the frame is square/rectangular as suggested by Duchene, the two first ridges would be parallel to each other).
Regarding claims 23-25, modified Muhlhoff makes obvious a tire wherein a first separation distance from each of the two first ridges to an edge of the code is identical, a second separation distance from each of the two second ridges to an edge of the code is identical, and the first and second separation distance is identical (as in the rejection of claim 1, it would be obvious to have a quiet zone surrounding the square code and a square frame surrounding this quiet zone to demarcate it as such. In doing so, the first separation distance would be equivalent from each of the first ridges on either circumferential side of the code to the code, the second separation distance would be equivalent from each of the second ridges on either radial side of the code to the code, and the first and second separation distances would be equivalent to each other because the frame, quiet zone, and code were all squares. Additionally, this is suggested by Fig. 2 of Duchene, wherein the frame is placed at the end of the quiet zone, with the quiet zone arranged evenly on all sides of the code. Alternatively, Duchene defines “L” as the circumferential length of the quiet zone and “H” as the radial height of the quiet zone. The arrangement of the quiet zone, for a typical QR code, may be 22mm by 22mm, as an example [0030]. For this type of arrangement, the quiet zone would be a square with equal lengths in either direction. A quiet zone at these dimensions helps allow for the code to be centered within the quiet zone [Duchene, 0030]. When the QR code (which is a square) is centered within said quiet zone (which would similarly be a square), the separation distance from the square frame (and thus the two first ridges and two second ridges) to the edge of the code would clearly be identical on all sides).
Regarding claim 26, modified Muhlhoff makes obvious a tire wherein the two second ridges are provided within a range between edges on both sides of the two-dimensional code in the tire radial direction and positions respectively away from the edges along the tire radial direction by a length of 50% of a length of the two-dimensional code along the side surface between an edge on an outer side of the two-dimensional code in the radial direction and an edge on an inner side of the two-dimensional code in the tire radial direction (as can be seen in Fig. 2 of Duchene and as stated in the rejection of claim 17 above, for example, the frame and quiet zone extend in a square-like shape around that of the square QR type code (as in Fig. 1 of Muhlhoff, for example). The frame, as previously stated, may form a square around the entire quiet zone and code, such that it surrounds the perimeter of the two. In this frame, the two second edges would be the radially innermost and outermost sides of the square. The second ridges would clearly be well within the 50% width of the two-dimensional code (given that the associated quiet zone is considerably less than 50% of width of the code), and the rest of the area within the 50% region would be a smooth surface as the surface of the sidewall of the tire as in Muhlhoff).
Regarding claim 27, modified Muhlhoff makes obvious a tire wherein the second ridges have a projection height of from 0.3 to 1.0mm from the smooth surface (the frame of Duchene may protrude outboardly past the sidewall surface, and the height of the protrusion of the frame is preferably 0.2mm or more [0027]. 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)).
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhlhoff (US2017/0050473A1, of record) in view Niwa (JPH09249006A, of record) and in view of Duchene (US2019/0135011A1, of record), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Suganuma (JP2004136617A, of record).
Regarding claims 28-29, Muhlhoff does not explicitly have a vent hold projection trace (spew) at an end of the first ridge in the radial direction. Muhlhoff in view of Duchene does not expressly limit the height nor outward profile of the frame, and it is silent as to occurrence of preferred vulcanization and vent hole projection traces. Suganuma teaches a pneumatic tire [title] which has a series of projections present on a tire sidewall [Fig. 3]. The projections “32” extend in the tire radial direction from a radial inner to a radial outer side. The projection “32” gradually increases in height from one end “32a” to the other end “32b” while continuously changing the projection height [Fig. 3b, 0024]. A gas vent communicates with the deepest part of the groove [0008], where the deepest part of the groove would be the portion “32b” which has the highest projection height. Having the vent holes (gas vent passages) communicating with the deepest portion of the groove allows the vent holes to penetrate the upper and lower molds, such that the gas collected at the deepest portions of the grooves may be discharged from the vent holes to the outside [0022]. When the projections are situated as such, only one cutting mark “33” is formed on the surface of the deepest (highest) end “32b”, from which the spew formed immediately after vulcanization is removed remains [0024]. In other words, the vent hole projection trace is provided at the deepest end of the projection after vulcanization. The teachings of Suganuma are applicable to a wide variety of protrusion types on a sidewall surface, such as numbers, letters, design elements, etc. [0035, see Figs. 7-10], and the teachings are also applicable when the protrusion intersects with another groove [Fig. 13].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the first ridges as in Muhlhoff in view of Duchene to have an increasing ridge height from one radial side to the other radial side, as suggested by Suganuma. In applying this change in depth, the ridge would have a deepest portion, which would be the location used for gas vent passages, and the vent hold projection trace would be provided at the end of the ridge with the higher projection height. One would have been motivated in order to reduce the number of gas vent passages and reduce the occurrence of spews, in addition to discharging all of the gas from the mold to ensure vulcanization [0007, 0026-0027]
Regarding claim 30, Muhlhoff in view of Suganuma further makes obvious a difference in the projection height between one end and the other end of the first ridge is from 0.2 to 0.5mm (the frame of Duchene may protrude outboardly past the sidewall surface, and the height of the protrusion of the frame is preferably 0.2mm or more [0027], with no specified upper limit. Suganuma suggests that the groove depth of its protrusions may range from 0.1 to 5.0mm [0042]. One would work within the range of groove depths as suggested by Suganuma in order to ensure unvulcanized rubber can flow smoothly into the groove during vulcanization such that gas is effectively discharged, and in order to have a preferable appearance [0042]. Therefore, given the suggestion that Suganuma provides a continuously increasing protruding height towards one side, there would be numerous embodiments where the claimed range was satisfied. One example would be when a first ridge has a lower height end at 0.2mm, and a higher height end at 0.5mm. 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)).
Claims 31, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhlhoff (US2017/0050473A1, of record) in view of Niwa (JPH09249006A, of record) and in view of Duchene (US2019/0135011A1, of record), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Miyazaki (JP2019026142A, of record).
Regarding claim 31, Muhlhoff does not explicitly disclose a tread rubber member of the pneumatic tire. Muhlhoff does not limit the placement of its code “4” to any particular portion of the sidewall. Miyazaki teaches that a sidewall rubber and a tread rubber constituting the tread portion will be made of different rubber material with different physical properties because the required performance is different for a tread rubber compared to a sidewall rubber [0005]. Because there are separate rubbers between the tread and sidewall portions, there exists a rubber interface “30” between them, with an outer end portion “31” which is on the outer surface of the tire [0031]. Miyazaki has circumferential groove portions “40” which are formed so as to intermittently cross the interface “30”and the outer end portion “31” such that at least a portion of it is formed over the boundary “30” portion [Fig. 2, Fig. 4-5]. Said another way, the plurality of circumferential groove forming protrusions during vulcanization are formed over the boundary between the tread rubber layer and side rubber layer [0014, 0022].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the tire of Muhlhoff such that it had a separate tread rubber from the side rubber and that the first ridges were made to be on a boundary between the rubbers, as suggested by the tire of Miyazaki. One would have been motivated to have a separate tread rubber in order to have different rubber materials with different physical properties for the different areas of the tire, because the required performance is different for a tread rubber compared to a sidewall rubber [Miyazaki, 0005]. One would have been motivated to place the first ridges (and respectively the code as well) at this boundary portion, as this would result, during the time of vulcanization, for the green tire to be intermittently pressed in the tire circumferential direction by the interface crossing portions, which leads to adhesion of the rubber boundary to be improved and for peeling between the tread and sidewall rubbers to be suppressed [0040]. It is additionally noted, as stated in the rejection of claim 17 above, that the frame as in Muhlhoff in view of Duchene may project inward from the smooth surface (recessing into the tire sidewall) in addition to projecting outward from the smooth surface, making the teachings of Miyazaki’s groove and protrusion portions particularly relevant and applicable.
Regarding claim 33, modified Muhlhoff further makes obvious a tire wherein a tread rubber member configured to form a boundary portion with a buttress region of the pair of side rubber members (as in the rejection of claim 31 above, the presence of the tread rubber, which is of a different rubber from the sidewall rubber, means that there is an interface “30” between the two rubber members. This interface may be considered the boundary portion between the two rubbers, and this area of the tire (between tread and sidewall) may be considered to be a buttress region), the smooth surface is provided on the buttress region and the first ridges are straddling the boundary portion (as in the rejection of claim 31 above, when Muhlhoff is in view of Miyazaki, one would have found it obvious to place the first ridges on a boundary between the rubber portions, as suggested by Miyazaki. One would have been motivated to place the first ridges (and respectively the code and the smooth surface as well) at this boundary portion, as this would result, during the time of vulcanization, for the green tire to be intermittently pressed in the tire circumferential direction by the interface crossing portions, which leads to adhesion of the rubber boundary to be improved and for peeling between the tread and sidewall rubbers to be suppressed [0040]. The placement of the symbol of Muhlhoff is not particularly limited as it may range across the length of the tire sidewall up to the tread (see Fig. 1, 0008), such that the symbol may readily be placed in such a boundary region between the rubbers. It is additionally noted, as stated in the rejection of claim 17 above, that the frame as in Muhlhoff in view of Duchene may project inward from the smooth surface (recessing into the tire sidewall) in addition to projecting outward from the smooth surface, making the teachings of Miyazaki’s groove and protrusion portions particularly relevant and applicable).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pg. 7 of their filed remarks that Muhlhoff already discloses that the symbol “4” is surrounded by a textured zone “5” which provides for improved reading/decoding of the symbol. Applicant argues that there is no further benefit by combining Duchene with Muhlhoff beyond the benefit that is already provided by Muhlhoff, and thus there would be no motivation to combine Duchene with Muhlhoff.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that the Examiner relies upon the first embodiment of Muhlhoff (such as Fig. 1) which portrays the symbol without the explicit presence of a textured zone “5” for improving the readability of the symbol. This zone is an optional presence within the symbol of Muhlhoff and is not required in such embodiments as Fig. 1. Applicant’s argument relies upon alternative embodiments of Muhlhoff (such as Fig. 6) which is separate from the crux of the rejection and are not particularly relevant. The structure of Fig. 6 is specifically listed as a nonlimiting embodiment [0090], such that the embodiment of Fig. 1 (tied to a first nonlimiting embodiment) is recognized to not necessarily contain each of the listed features nor be limited to a specific boundary of readability as suggested therein. Given the specific beneficial teachings of Duchene to improve readability of symbols, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Muhlhoff Fig. 1 so as to have the physical frame as suggested in Duchene as an alternative improved structure for enhancing acquisition of the digital code pattern.
Further, Applicant’s argument is unconvincing as this goes against the teachings and benefits of Duchene. Duchene provides a quiet zone “26” that completely surrounds the code as an area free of markings, indicia, etc., as a way to optimize the ability of the scanner to read and acquire the code [Duchene, 0021]. In this way, the quiet zone “26” may be similar to the textured zone “5” of Muhlhoff which provides for an area for improved readability and contrast. However, even with the presence of such a quiet zone in Duchene, Duchene additionally provides the presence of the physical frame “34” that is formed outside of the quiet zone [0023] so as to further mark the edge of the QR code, improve readability and capture, etc. The presence of such a physical frame does not work against the presence of a quiet zone or any textured areas, but rather it would further improve the capture characteristics in such a tire. Therefore, even in the case where a symbol of Muhlhoff has a zone “5”, the presence of such a physical frame and marker would be expected to further mark the edges of the symbol so as to obtain the specific benefits of marking the edge of the symbol and improving readability and capture.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 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 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
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights