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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto (JP 2019-182067, of record). EP 3549788 is being relied upon in the rejection below as it constitutes an English equivalent.
As best depicted in Figure 3, Fujimoto is directed to a tire construction comprising a plurality of side blocks 12 including short portions 17 and long portions 16 that are curved in one direction, wherein a groove 22 is present axially inward of a tread end Te and extends radially inward of said tread end to define said short and long portion. It is further evident from Figure 3 that said long portion has a greater radial extension as compared to said short portion.
Additionally, based on the curved shape at a bottom end of said short portion, a distance between respective portions is small at said bottom end (corresponds with claimed slit) as compared to a distance or width between said portions at a tread end (corresponds with the width of groove 22). This suggests a slit width that is less than 1 times a width of the groove. While the reference fails to expressly disclose a ratio between widths or distances, the general disclosure that respective portions are in close proximity to one another at the bottom of the short portion is seen to encompass all ratios less than 1 and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the broad range of the claimed invention. It is emphasized that a bottom end of the short portion approaches the long portion so as to create a width or distance (slit width) that is reduced as compared to a width or distance of the groove at the tread end that defines said portions (consistent with the reference disclosure that the width of recess 22 gradually decreases toward the radially inner side of the tire- Paragraph 62).
With further respect to claim 1, as noted above, Figure 3 depicts said long portion as having a greater radial extension as compared to said short portion. This general depiction corresponds with ratios that are less than 100% and such is seen to encompass the broad range of the claimed invention. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed quantitative relationship.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, Figure 3 generally depicts a block length W1 that is greater than 0.5 times a pitch length and less than 1.0 times a pitch length PB (see annotated Figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
638
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, Figure 2 generally depicts a side block having a circumferential width and a radial height that are extremely similar to one another and thus approximately in the middle of the broad range of the claimed invention. See annotated Figure 3 above (block width corresponds with W1 and block height corresponds with a distance slightly greater than L1). It is noted that Fujimoto does state that radial height L1 is preferably between 0.5 and 0.7 times a block length W1 (Paragraph 60), further suggesting that a block length would fall between 0.7 and 1.5 times an overall block height (slightly greater than L1).
As to claim 5, a distance between side blocks is equal to a width of groove 11 and such corresponds with a ratio of 1.0.
Regarding claim 6, a circumferential length of long portion 16 corresponds with a combined width of W2 and W3. More particularly, width W2 is preferably smaller than 0.5 times a circumferential block length W1 (Paragraph 37) and width W3 is preferably smaller than 0.5 times a circumferential block length W1 (Paragraph 58). As such, it reasons that a combined width of W2 and W3 can be at least equal to 0.8 times a circumferential block length W1.
With respect to claim 11, the entirety of the slit (radial extension of the slit 22) in the connection portion between the short portion 17 and long portion 16 (radial extent over which said portions overlap) is radially arranged (90 degrees with respect to a circumferential direction) or ever so slightly inclined with respect to a tire radial direction.
As to claim 12, slit 22 at a radially innermost end of short portion 17 has a width that is slightly less than a groove width at the tread end. While an exact slit width is not disclosed at a radially inner end of the short portion, the figures generally depict a slit width that is significantly less than 0.5 times a circumferential block length. Also, given that w2 is preferably as small as 0.15 times W1 (circumferential length of the block) (Paragraph 38), width w3 is preferably as small as 0.35 times W1 (Paragraph 58), and a width of the short portion is similar to a width of the long portion (Paragraph 45), it reasons that a width of slit 22 would fall between 0.1 and 0.6 times a circumferential block length (circumferential block length is the sum of short and long portions and recesses 21 and 22).
5. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto and further in view of Ono (JP 11291718, newly cited).
As detailed above, Fujimoto is directed to a tire construction having a plurality of tread blocks or side blocks that extend radially inward of a tread end. In such an instance, though, Fujimoto is silent with respect to the relationship between a radial extension of said blocks and a tire section height. In any event, the claimed relationship is consistent with the common arrangement of side blocks, as shown for example by Ono. More particularly, a radial distance L varies between 0.3 and 0.5 times a tire section height- given that a radial height of the block from a tread end is smaller than radial distance L, the disclosure of Ono suggests a ratio (as defined by the claims) that is substantially encompassed by the broad range of the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional dimensions (radial dimensions) for the tire side blocks of Fujimoto and such appears to suggest ratios in accordance to the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, and 11-14 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
7. 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.
7. 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 January 23, 2026