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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The language “the short portion is positioned relative to the long portion such that it lies on an inner diameter side or a concave side of the curved or the bent shape of the long portion” is not present in the original specification and as such, is seen to constitute new matter. More particularly, Figures 5 and 6 appear to depict an assembly in which a short portion is positioned on an outer diameter side, and not an inner diameter side, of the curved or the bent shape of the long portion. Applicant is asked to clarify the scope of the claimed invention without the introduction of new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zanzig (US 6,761,198, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Zanzig teaches a tire construction comprising a plurality of side blocks, each side block comprising a short portion (lug 4 having small radial extension) and a long portion (lug 4 having greater radial extension) separated by a slit. See the modified figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
738
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In such an instance, the combination of adjacent short portions and long portions correspond with a single side block (claims as currently drafted fail to exclude such a characterization). Additionally, the figures generally depict a circumferential length of the side blocks that is only slightly less than a pitch of the side blocks and such would be recognized as satisfying the claimed quantitative relationship (circumferential length of a side blocks is the sum of the length of the short portion, the length of the long portion, and the length of the slit therebetween, while the pitch of a side block is the aforementioned sum and an additional length of a slit between a long portion and a short portion). It is emphasized that the claimed ratio is necessarily less than 1 and the figures generally depict a construction in which said ratio is considerably greater than 0.50. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Zanzig with a ratio in accordance to the claimed invention given the general disclosure of Zanzig and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
In terms of a radial extension of respective portions, the long portions in Zanzig clearly have a larger radial extension as compared to the short portions (see Figure 1). This depiction corresponds with a claimed ratio that is less than 1. While Zanzig fails to specifically provide a quantitative relationship between respective portion, Figure 1 appears to depict a ratio that is greater than 0.5 and less than 1 and in accordance to the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Zanzig with a ratio between radial extensions or heights in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Lastly, regarding claims 13 and 14, respective portions can be viewed as having a first portion or region that is essentially parallel with a radial tire radial direction and a second portion or region that extends along a tire circumferential direction and is bent upward along a tire radial direction. Each portion of respective side blocks has this arrangement and as such, a short portion has a shape curved or bent in a same direction as a long portion from a tire ground contact edge toward an inner side in the tire radial direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11, and 12 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the general manufacture of tires formed with side blocks defined by long and short portions is known in the tire industry, as shown for example by Zanzig. In such an instance, though, a slit width is the same as a lug groove width and thus, falls outside the cope of the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to modify the tire of Zanzig in accordance to the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights