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
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 11/24/2025. Claims 20-38 are pending for examination.
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 20-22, 29, 30, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier et al. (US 2018/0065416 A1 – of Record) in view of Piffard et al. (US 2014/0251519 A1 – of Record), and Washizu (US 2022/0235209 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 20, Mosnier teaches a tire (Para. [0054]) with a directional tread (Para. [0044]) comprising a plurality of blocks made of rubbery material (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5) forming a contact surface within the contact patch (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 3) where the blocks are organized into patterns of pitch P (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. WB) where the pattern comprise at least one sipe (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 12, 10) where the projected length of the sipes in the axial direction is equal to the width of the tire. Additionally, the outermost sipes (main sipe) (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 12) begin on the sidewall as they start outside the tread contact width (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 3) and they extend inward to a point not as far as the central axis. Mosnier also teaches that the at least one sipe is chamfered (Para. [0026]) and while the exact chamfer shape is not described, a chamfer being in the shape of an inclined plane is well known in the art as Mosnier describes relating to the block chamfers (Para. [0027]). Additionally, the at least one sipe can be defined having a first, second, and third part where all three parts would be chamfered. However, Mosnier does not teach the sipe density.
In an analogous art, Piffard teaches a tire with sipes where the sipe density is calculated the same way (Piffard; equation 2) and is between 9 and 37 mm-1 (Para. [0039]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 to 70 which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mosnier with Piffard in order to have the sipe density be between 9 and 37 mm-1. This modification will break the compromise between dry and snow traction (Piffard; Para. [0039]). However, the modified Mosnier teaches the surface void ratio.
In an analogous art, Washizu teaches a tire (Para. [0169}) that has a land ratio of 30% or higher (Para. [0183]), which would be a void ratio of 70% or lower, which overlaps with the claimed range of 40% to 70% which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Mosnier with Washizu in order to have a land ratio of 30% or higher. This modification will improve wet and dry grip performance (Washizu; Para. [0183]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Mosnier teaches that the land ratio of 30% or higher (Washizu; Para. [0183]), which would be a void ratio of 70% or lower, which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 45% which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 22, modified Mosnier teaches that the land ratio of 30% or higher (Washizu; Para. [0183]), which would be a void ratio of 70% or lower, which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 50% which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 29, Mosnier teaches that the height of the blocks is 6 to 8 mm (Para. [0010]), which is within the claimed range of 6 to 8 mm.
Regarding claim 30, Mosnier teaches that the modulus of the tread with a glass transition temperature of -40 to -15 degrees is 0.5 MPa to 1.1 MPa (Para. [0032]), which is within the claimed range of 0.5 MPa to 2 MPa.
Regarding claim 38, Mosnier doesn’t state that the tire has the 3PMSF winter certification; however, since the tire as a structure and rubber composition designed for winter conditions (Para. [0001], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the tire to be capable of having that certification and it is well known in the art to place certifications on the tire sidewall for visibility.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier et al. (US 2018/0065416 A1), Piffard et al. (US 2014/0251519 A1), and Washizu (US 2022/0235209 A1) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Speziari (US 2020/0156417 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 23, modified Mosnier does not teach the void ratio decreasing with the depth of the tread.
In an analogous art, Speziari teaches a tire where lateral grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 9) are chamfered (Fig. 4, Ref. Num. 15). This will cause the void ratio to be larger on the tread surface and decrease along the depth of the chamfer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Mosnier with Speziari in order to add chamfers to the lateral grooves. This modification will improve the behavior of the tire in the event of tangential stress (Para. [0019]).
Regarding claim 24, Mosnier teaches that the lateral grooves have a width of 4 to 5 mm (Para. [0009]) and Speziari teaches that the chamfer width is 1 to 3 mm (Para. [0069]) and the chamfer ends at a depth of 0.7 mm (Para. [0146]). This would make the groove width at the surface be between 6 to 11 mm and be between 4 to 5 mm at a depth of 0.7 mm or more. Since all the void in the tire is lateral grooves, the void ratio follows the same ratio as the groove width. Therefore, the void ratio at a depth of 2 mm is 0.36 to 0.83 times the void ratio at the surface, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.41 to 0.66 which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 25, Mosnier teaches that the lateral grooves have a width of 4 to 5 mm (Para. [0009]) and Speziari teaches that the chamfer width is 1 to 3 mm (Para. [0069]) and the chamfer ends at a depth of 0.7 mm (Para. [0146]). This would make the groove width at the surface be between 6 to 11 mm and be between 4 to 5 mm at a depth of 0.7 mm or more. Since all the void in the tire is lateral grooves, the void ratio follows the same ratio as the groove width. Therefore, the void ratio at a depth of 2 mm is 0.36 to 0.83 times the void ratio at the surface, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.50 to 0.58 which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier et al. (US 2018/0065416 A1), Piffard et al. (US 2014/0251519 A1), and Washizu (US 2022/0235209 A1) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Sakamoto (US 2011/0240191 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 26, Mosnier does not teach multiple pitches being different from each other.
In an analogous art, Sakamoto teaches a tire with three different pitch lengths where the pitches are arranged randomly (Para. [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mosnier with Sakamoto in order to have three pitch lengths arranged randomly across the tire. This modification will help enhance the noise performance (Sakamoto; Para. [0056]). Also, modified Mosnier teaches that the sipe density is between 9 and 37 mm-1 (Piffard; Para. [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date when picking the three different pitch lengths for the tire to keep the mean sipe density within this range in order to keep the compromise between dry and snow traction (Piffard; Para. [0039]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 to 70 which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 27, modified Mosnier teaches that the sipe density is between 9 and 37 mm-1 (Piffard; Para. [0039]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 25 to 50 which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 28, modified Mosnier teaches that the sipe density is between 9 and 37 mm-1 (Piffard; Para. [0039]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 30 to 40 which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier et al. (US 2018/0065416 A1), Piffard et al. (US 2014/0251519 A1), and Washizu (US 2022/0235209 A1) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Blanchard et al. (US 2012/0245270 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 31, modified Mosnier does not teach the rubber composition containing an elastomer comprising a functional group with a silicon atom.
In an analogous art, Blanchard teaches using a rubber composition containing an elastomer that has a silanol functional group (Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mosnier with Blanchard to use a rubber composition containing an elastomer that has a silanol functional group. This modification will improve the interaction between the reinforcing filler containing an inorganic filler and the elastomer (Blanchard; Para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 32, modified Mosnier teaches an elastomer containing a silicon atom (silanol) (Blanchard; Para. [0027]) located at an end of the chain (Para. [0029]).
Regarding claims 33, modified Mosnier teaches an elastomer containing a silanol functional group (Blanchard; Para. [0027]).
Regarding claims 34, modified Mosnier teaches an elastomer containing a polysiloxane functional group (Blanchard; Para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 35, modified Mosnier teaches an elastomer containing a silicon atom (silanol) (Blanchard; Para. [0027]) located in the middle of the chain (Para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 36, modified Mosnier teaches an elastomer containing a hydroxyl (Blanchard; Para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 37, modified Mosnier teaches an elastomer containing a functional group with oxygen (Blanchard; Para. [0027]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the rejection of record does not teach the at least one sipe including chamfered portions. Mosnier also teaches that the at least one sipe is chamfered (Para. [0026]) and while the exact chamfer shape is not described, a chamfer being in the shape of an inclined plane is well known in the art as Mosnier describes relating to the block chamfers (Para. [0027]).
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 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 NICHOLAS J WEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-2664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/N.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749