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 .
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that a marked up version of the amended claims is required as per MPEP 714 and 37 CFR 1.121. For the sake of compact prosecution, the amendment filed January 8, 2025 has been entered and claims have been examined on the merits. Applicant is encouraged to comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) for future amendments to prevent any issues of noncompliance.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 8, 2025 has been entered. Claims 11-29 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 21 there is an extra comma. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11-29 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the transverse groove" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the recited “transverse groove” is the same as the previously recited “transverse channel” in the claim.
Claims 12-29 are rejected due to dependency on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 12, 15, 24, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US D86,800 (Moss).
Regarding claim 11, Moss discloses a utility vehicle tire comprising sidewalls and a tread with shoulder-side profile ribs (see Figure 1), wherein the shoulder-side profiled ribs have shoulder-side profile blocks which are separated from each other by transverse channels and which have in each case a ground contact surface and one flank surface running in a circumferential direction of the adjoining sidewall (see annotated Figure 1 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
653
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The flank surface (within dashed lines of annotated Figure 2 below) adjoining the ground contact surface and being circumferentially delimited at two edges by the respective transverse channels in which the flank surface has an overall extent length in the circumferential direction between the two edges (see annotated Figure 2 below and Figure 3),
PNG
media_image2.png
391
459
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein, on at least one of the sidewalls, there is formed a flank guard which adjoins the shoulder-side profile blocks and which is elevated in relation to a level of the sidewall (see annotated Figure 2 below),
Wherein the flank guard is formed from a multiplicity of wedge-shaped elevations, wherein each wedge-shaped elevation adjoins one respective flank surface directly below the respective flank surface and has an outer surface which, in a tire cross section, transitions without a kink into the respective flank surface and extends away from the respective flank surface to protrude outwardly relative to the sidewall (see annotated Figure 2 below, and Figure 3), and
PNG
media_image3.png
391
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein each of the wedge-shaped elevations extends in the circumferential direction between two ends that terminate at the respective transverse channels such that each respective wedge-shaped elevation spans the overall extent length of the flank surface (see annotated Figure 2 below which shows that wedge-shaped elevation 1 and wedge-shaped elevation 2 have an end that spans the overall extent length of the flank surface),
PNG
media_image4.png
391
459
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wherein each shoulder-side profile block is the same as a directly adjacent shoulder-side profile block separated by the transverse channel, such that the shoulder-side profile blocks repeat continuously and uniformly around the circumference of the tire (see Figures 1 and 2), and
Wherein each wedge-shaped elevation is the same as a directly adjacent wedge-shaped elevation separated by the transverse channel, such that these same wedge-shaped elevations repeat continuously and uniformly around the tire (see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 12, Moss also discloses that each of the wedge-shaped elevations adjoins the flank surface over its length as measured in a circumferential direction (see annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 15, Moss also discloses that each of the wedge-shaped elevations has a thickness measured perpendicular to the level of the sidewall, which thickness, as viewed in the tire cross section, increases over the extent of the outer surface in the direction of the sidewall proceeding from the flank surface of the shoulder-side profile block (see Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 24, Moss also discloses that each of the wedge-shaped elevations has a shape which deviates from an isosceles trapezoidal shape as seen in a view directed toward the sidewall (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 26, Moss also discloses that as flank guard composed of a plurality of the wedge-shaped elevations is formed on each of the sidewalls (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 27, Moss also discloses that each of the wedge-shaped elevations has delimiting surfaces (boundaries) which run between its outer surface and a respective sidewall (see annotated Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
391
459
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims16, 17, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US D86,800 (Moss).
Claims 16 and 17 are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire distances/thickness values are a function of the tire size and ultimately the intended use of the tire. Larger tires are generally associated with larger dimensions. Additionally, thickness values between 1 and 3 mm are consistent with the general order of thickness values in tires and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed thickness range.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Moss discloses a tire as discussed above. While Moss does not specifically state the angle of the relationship of the wedge-shaped elevations with the respective sidewall; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figures 3 and 4 show an angle between the wedge-shaped elevations and the sidewall that is on the order of greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees, which overlaps the claimed ranges of 90-130 degrees and at least 100 degrees. In the case where the claimed ranges "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). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11, 12, 15, 24 and 26-29 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-23 and 25 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a tire as claimed wherein as viewed in the tire cross section an outer surface of each of the wedge shaped elevations is continuously inwardly curved or in a shape of a circular arc. The wedge shaped elevations of the Moss reference (Figure 3) have outer surfaces that are straight rather than curved. The Moss reference also does not disclose or suggest that each of the wedge-shaped elevations has an isosceles trapezoidal shape or a rectangular shape in a view directed toward a sidewall as recited in claims 20 and 25 (see annotate Figure 2 above, which shows some of the wedge-shaped elevations are triangular in shape).
Conclusion
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