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 .
1) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8-7-25 has been entered. Also, the supplemental amendment filed 11-7-25 has been entered.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) Claims 15-28 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.
In claims 15 and 20, the description regarding first half-elements and second half-elements is ambiguous and confusing. FOR EXAMPLE: It is unclear if the first tread pattern element comprises (1) a first half-element and a second half-element (claim 15 lines 6-7) and/or (2) a first half-element MA1 and a first half-element MA2 (claim 15 lines 37-38). In other words, it is unclear how many half-elements are required for each tread pattern element. ANOTHER EXAMPLE: It is unclear if the first half elements on line 46 have pitch PA, pitch PB or pitch PA and pitch PB. ANOTHER EXAMPLE: The description of “LCiA, LCiB of the first half-elements or the second half-elements” (claim 15 lines 51-52) makes no sense and makes it unclear what has pitch PA and what has pitch PB.
In CLAIM 15, the following changes are suggested:
(1) on line 32 change “the first half-elements” to --the half-elements of a first tread pattern element MA--;
(2) on line 33, change “the second half-elements” to --the half-elements of a second tread pattern element MB--;
(3) on line 37 delete --the first half-elements including--;
(4) on line 38 change “a first half-element MA2” to --a second half-element
MA2--;
(5) on lines 39-40 delete --the second-half elements including--;
(6) on line 40 change ”second half-element MB1” to --first half-element MB1--;
(7) on lines 46-47 change “the first half-elements or the second half-elements” to --the half-elements MA1, MA2 of the first tread pattern element MA and the half-elements MB1, MB2 of the second tread pattern element MB with respective pitches PA, PB--;
(8) on lines 51-52 delete --of the first half-elements or the second half-elements--;
(9) on line 64, delete --formed of the first half-elements--;
(10) on line 65, delete --formed of the second half-elements--.
In CLAIM 20, the following changes are suggested:
(1) on line 2, delete --formed of the first half-elements--;
(2) on line 4, delete --formed of the first half-elements--;
(3) on line 5, delete --formed of the second half-elements--; and
(4) on line 7, delete --formed of the second half-elements--.
In CLAIM 20 line 4, “and chamfers” should be --and widths of chamfers-- to clarify the comparison described for the second tread pattern element MB.
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) Claims 15-22, 24 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier et al (US 2018/0065416) in view of Guichon #1 (US 2012/0267021), Europe 757 (EP 739757), Korea 811 (KR 2014-0025811) and Sugata et al (JP 62-292508).
Mosnier et al discloses a pneumatic tire [FIGURE 5] having a directional tread pattern comprising blocks 5 separated by grooves 9 [FIGURE 1]. Each block 5 comprises sipes 10, 11, 12. Each block 5 extends from a tread edge 3 to a center 4 [FIGURE 1]. The blocks of the tread are made up of an elastomer composition based on a diene elastomer, a plasticizing system and an interlinking system, wherein the elastomer composition has a glass transition temperature of between −40° C. and −15° C and a shear modulus G* measured at 60° C. of between 0.5 MPa and 1.1 MPa [paragraph 71]. This composition allows use under wintery conditions with very cold temperatures without deterioration of performance [paragraph 33]. The tire is particularly advantageous on snow covered and/or icy ground [paragraph 35]. Mosnier et al’s FIGURE 1 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
578
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In claim 15, each half element reads on one of the blocks 5. Each tread pattern element reads on two of the blocks 5 (one block on one side of the tread and another block on the other side of the tread). As can be seen from Mosnier et al’s FIGURE 1, the tread pattern elements (MA, MB) comprise half-elements including first half elements (MA1, MA2) [blocks 5] and second half elements (MB1, MB2) [blocks 5], which are symmetric with respect to an equatorial plane passing through the center of the tread and are offset from one another in the circumferential direction by a distance. As to each half element being curved, Mosnier et al teaches that each block may have a curved shape [paragraph 51]. As to radial height H being at least equal to 6 mm and at most equal to a radial height Hmax of the tread, Mosnier et al teaches that each block of the tread has a height H = 6 to 8 mm [FIGURE 3, paragraph 10]. An annotated copy of FIGURE 1 of Mosnier et al is provided below:
PNG
media_image2.png
704
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, the markings were added by examiner to facilitate discussion of Mosnier et al. In the MARKED UP FIGURE, “1” is a first lateral portion in which grooves are inclined at an angle θ1, “2” is a second central portion in which grooves are inclined at an angle θ2, “3” is a third intermediate portion in which grooves are inclined at an angle θ3. The grooves have leading faces and trailing faces [FIGURE 3 of Mosnier et al]. As can be seen from FIGURE 1, axial width of the second central portion 2 is about the same as axial width of the first lateral portion 1. As can also be seen from FIGURES 1 and 3, angle θ1 (grooves first lateral portion) with respect to circumferential direction is greater than angle θ3 (grooves third intermediate portion) with respect to circumferential direction and angle θ3 (grooves third intermediate portion) with respect to circumferential direction is greater than angle θ2 (grooves second central portion) with respect to circumferential direction. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Mosnier et al teaches providing the blocks 5 separated by grooves 9 for evacuating water such that each block has a central zone (second central portion) inclined at angle β1 = 35-65 degrees with respect to axial direction (angle = 25-55 degrees with respect to circumferential direction), an intermediate zone (third intermediate portion) inclined at an angle β2 with respect to the axial direction and an edge zone (first lateral portion) inclined at angle β3 = 0-10 degrees with respect to axial direction (angle = 80-90 degrees with respect to circumferential direction) to reduce risk of stones being trapped in the grooves [FIGURE 1, paragraphs 7-8, 55-56]. Mosnier et al does not describe pitch ratios and chamfer ratios.
As to CLAIMS 15, 18-21 and 27, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Mosnier et al’s tire such that
the trailing edge corner of each portion (Z1, Z2, Z3) respectively has a chamfered profile (51, 52, 53), with respective widths of chamfers of the chamfered profile LC1A, LC2A, LC3A for the half-elements of a first element (MA1, MA2) and, respective widths of chamfers of the chamfered profile LC1B, LC2B, LC3B for the half-elements (MB1, MB2) of a second element, a width of a chamfer in a portion (Z1, Z2, Z3) being a normal distance between the trailing face of the portion and the edge corner of the chamfer belonging to the tread surface, the tread being obtained through a periodic distribution in the circumferential direction of a first tread pattern element MA formed of a first half element MA1 and of a half element MA2, which is a symmetric counterpart to MA1 at a pitch PA, and of a second tread pattern element MB formed of a second half element MB1 and of a half element MB2 which is a symmetric counterpart to MB1 at a pitch PB, where pitch PA < pitch PB, wherein, in the portions Z1, Z2, or Z3, the widths of the chamfers of the trailing edge comers LCiA, LCiB, i ranging from 1 to 3 of the half-elements (MA1, MA2) and (MB1, MB2) with respective pitches PA, PB satisfy at least one of the following inequalities:
PNG
media_image3.png
158
350
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the widths of the chamfers of trailing edge corners LCA, LCB of the first half-elements or the second half-elements satisfy at least one of the following conditions: a chamfer width of a chamfer in the third, intermediate portion Z2 of the second tread pattern element MB is greater than a chamfer width of a chamfer in the third, intermediate portion Z2 of the first tread pattern element MA;
a chamfer width of a chamfer in the second, central portion Z1 of the second tread pattern element MB is greater than a chamfer width of a chamfer in the second, central portion Z1 of the first tread pattern element MA; or a chamfer width of a chamfer in the first, lateral portion Z3 of the second tread pattern element MB is greater than a chamfer width of a chamfer in the first, lateral portion Z3 of the first tread pattern element MA,
widths of chamfers of the leading edge corners or chamfers of the trailing edge corners LC1A, LC2A, LC3A for the first tread pattern element MA formed of the half-elements (MA1, MA2) and chamfers of the leading edge corners or of the trailing edge corners LC1B, LC2B, LC3B for the second tread pattern element MB formed of the second half-elements (MB1, MB2) of the respective portions (Z1, Z2, Z3) satisfy at least one of the following relationships: (1) LC1X belongs to a range 0.5 mm to 2 mm, where X=A or B, (2) LC2X belongs to a range 1 mm to 2.5 mm, where X=A or B, and (3) LC3X belongs to a range 1.5 mm to 3 mm, where X=A or B [claim 15],
a ratio between the pitch PA of the first tread pattern element MA formed of the half-elements (MA1, MA2) divided by the pitch PB of the second tread pattern element MB formed of the half-elements (MB1, MB2), pitch PA / pitch PB, is at least equal to 0.80 and at most equal to 0.90 [claim 18],
a ratio between the pitch PA of the first tread pattern element MA formed of the half-elements (MA1, MA2) divided by the pitch PB of the second tread pattern element MB formed of the half-elements (MB1, MB2), pitch PA / pitch PB, is at least equal to 0.85 [claim 19],
wherein widths of chamfers of the leading edge corners for the first tread pattern element MA formed of the first half-elements have same respective widths of chamfers of the trailing edge corners LC1A, LC2A, LC3A for the first tread pattern element MA formed of the first half-elements, and chamfers of the leading edge corners for the second tread pattern element MB formed of the second half-elements have same respective widths of chamfers of the trailing edge corners LC1B, LC2B, LC3B for the second tread pattern element MB formed of the second half-elements [claim 20]
the tread further comprises a third tread pattern element MC formed of two tread pattern half-elements (MC1, MC2) that are symmetric with respect to the equatorial plane (C), with a pitch PC, where PB is smaller than PC, wherein
a ratio of the pitches PB/PC is greater than or equal to a ratio of the pitches PA/PB [claim 21]
at least 30% of the leading and/or trailing edge corners have a chamfer [claim 27]
since (1) Guichon #1 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 245/45R17) having a tread comprising blocks separated by grooves such that leading and trailing edges of each block is chamfered wherein chamfer angle = 30 to 60 degrees (e.g. 45 degrees) with respect to the tread surface, chamfer width = 1-3 mm (e.g. 1.5 mm) and chamfer depth = 1-3 mm (e.g. 1.5 mm) to improve snow performance, (2) Europe 757 teaches providing a tire having a directional tread pattern comprising blocks separated by grooves [FIGURE 1] such that the tread defines a sequence of pitches comprising three different pitch lengths (SMALL PITCH , MEDIUM PITCH, LARGE PITCH) wherein length MEDIUM PITCH = 105 to 120% length SMALL PITCH [pitch PB = 1.05 to 1.20 pitch PA → pitch PA = 0.83 to 0.95 pitch PB] and length MEDIUM PITCH = 85 to 95% length LARGE PITCH [pitch PB = 0.85 to 0.95 pitch PC] to give good noise reduction and (3) Korea 811 teaches providing a pneumatic tire for automobile having a tread comprising blocks and small pitches S, medium pitches M and large pitches L wherein leading edges and trailing edges of the blocks have chamfers such that chamfer size (width W and depth D) is proportional to block size (length L) [Ws = 99-100% Ls, Wm = 99-101% Lm, WL = 98-101% LL] to improve braking performance, ensure uniformity of ground pressure between blocks and prevent abnormal wear [FIGURES 1-4, machine translation].
As to CLAIM 15: Guichon #1 provides ample motivation (improve snow performance) to chamfer the leading edge corners and trailing edge corners of the blocks of Mosnier et al such that chamfer width = 1-3 mm. Europe 757 provides ample motivation (reduce noise) to provide Mosnier et al’s tread such that PA/PB = 0.83 to 0.95 and PB/PC = 0.85 to 0.95. When Mosnier et al’s tread is provided such that chamfer width (leading edge corner) = 1-3 mm, chamfer width (trailing edge corner) =
1-3 mm [as per Guichon #1] and PA/PB = 0.83 to 0.95 and PB/PC = 0.85 to 0.95 [as per Europe 757] and chamfer width is proportional to block length [Korea 811], then the resulting tread of Mosnier et al satisfies the inequalities a), b), c) set forth in claim 15.
As to CLAIMS 15-17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Mosnier et al’s tire such that the surface void ratio TES is at least equal to 0.35 and at most equal to 0.60 [claim 15], the surface void ratio TES is greater than or equal to 0.4 [claim 16], the surface void ratio TES is greater than or equal to 0.45 [claim 17] since (1) Mosnier et al teaches that the tire is particularly advantageous on snow overed and/or icy ground and (2) Sugata et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 185/70R13) having a directional tread pattern [FIGURE 1] such that groove area ratio (surface void ratio) = 30 to 50% to improve on snow performance, improve on ice performance and improve wear resistance [machine translation].
As to CLAIM 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Mosnier et al’s tire such that each half element (MA1, MB1) and its respective symmetric counterpart (MA2, MB2) are curved, in an axial direction, from an axial end of one edge of the tread to the center of the tread so as to defined a preferred direction of running of the tire, and having an axial width, each half-element (MA1, MB1; MA2, MB2) comprising a first, lateral portion (23) extending from an axial end of the edge of the tread over an axial width equal to at most one third of the axial width of the half-element, a second, central portion (Z1) having the same axial width as the first, lateral portion (Z3), and a third, intermediate portion (Z2) contiguous with the two other portions, wherein the first, lateral portion is defined within a zone in which half-elements have trailing faces making an angle with respect to the circumferential direction greater than an angle that trailing faces of half-elements in a zone for the third, intermediate portion make with respect to the circumferential direction, and wherein the third, intermediate portion is defined within a zone in which half-elements have trailing faces making an angle with respect to the circumferential direction greater than an angle that trailing faces of half-elements in a zone for the second, central portion make with respect to the circumferential direction since
(1) Mosnier et al teaches providing blocks 5 separated by grooves 9 for evacuating water in a directional tread pattern such that each block has a central zone (second central portion) inclined at angle β1 = 35-65 degrees with respect to axial direction (angle = 25-55 degrees with respect to circumferential direction), an intermediate zone (third intermediate portion) inclined at an angle β2 with respect to the axial direction and an edge zone (first lateral portion) inclined at angle β3 = 0-10 degrees with respect to axial direction (angle = 80-90 degrees with respect to circumferential direction) to reduce risk of stones being trapped in the grooves
[FIGURE 1, paragraphs 7-8, 55-56],
(2) Mosnier et al teaches providing the blocks with a curved shape wherein this curvature variable or formed by a succession of segments [paragraphs 51, 56], and
(3) (A) Mosnier et al shows axial width of the second central portion 2 is about the same as axial width of the first lateral portion 1 [FIGURE 1], and (B) Mosnier et al shows angle θ1 (grooves in first lateral portion) with respect to circumferential direction is greater than angle θ3 (grooves third intermediate portion) with respect to circumferential direction and angle θ3 (grooves third intermediate portion) with respect to circumferential direction is greater than angle θ2 (grooves second central portion) with respect to circumferential direction [FIGURE 1] wherein the grooves have leading faces and trailing faces [FIGURE 3]. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). It is noted that leading faces and trailing faces of the grooves define trailing faces and leading faces of the blocks.
As to CLAIM 18: Europe 757 teaches PA/PB = 0.83 to 0.95 (overlapping claimed range of 0.80 to 0.90).
As to CLAIM 19: Europe 757 teaches PA/PB = 0.83 to 0.95 (overlapping claimed range of at least 0.85).
As to CLAIM 20: Guichon #1 and Korea 811 teach chamfering the leading edge and trailing edge of each block wherein for an individual block, the chamfer width at the leading edge is the same as the chamfer width at the trailing edge.
As to CLAIM 21: Europe 757 teaches PA/PB = 0.83 to 0.95 and PB/PC = 0.85 to 0.95. Therefore, PB/PC may be greater than or equal to PA/PB.
As to claim 22 (radial height Hmax at most equal to 9 mm), Mosnier et al teaches that each block of the tread has a height H = 6 to 8 mm [FIGURE 3, paragraph 10].
As to claim 24 (the volumetric void ratio TEM of each tread pattern element (MA, MB, MC) is more or less identical), Mosnier et al teaches that each block of the tread has a height H = 6 to 8 mm [FIGURE 3, paragraph 10], Sugata et al teaches groove area ratio (surface void ratio) = 30 to 50% and Europe 757 teaches PA/PB = 0.83 to 0.95 and PB/PC = 0.85 to 0.95. When these teachings are incorporated in Mosnier et al’s tire, then the volumetric void ratio of each tread pattern element (block) is more or less identical.
Claim 26 describes a composition of a rubbery material of the tread has a glass transition temperature Tg of between -40°C and -10°C and a complex dynamic shear modulus G* measured at 60°C of between 0.5 MPa and 2 MPa. As to this claim, note that Mosnier et al teaches that the blocks of the tread are made up of an elastomer composition based on a diene elastomer, a plasticizing system and an interlinking system, wherein the elastomer composition has a glass transition temperature of between −40° C. and −15° C and a shear modulus G* measured at 60° C. of between 0.5 MPa and 1.1 MPa [paragraph 71].
As to CLAIM 27, Guichon #1 and Korea 811 teach chamfering the entire length of the leading edge of the block and the entire length of the trailing edge of the block.
7) Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier et al (US 2018/0065416) in view of Guichon #1 (US 2012/0267021), Europe 757 (EP 739757), Korea 811 (KR 2014-0025811) and Sugata et al (JP 62-292508) as applied above and further in view of Muhlhoff et al (US 2021/0370722 or WO 2019/102149).
As to claim 23, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Mosnier et al’s tire such that the volumetric void ratio TEV of the tread is between 20% and 40% wherein an overall volumetric void ratio TEV corresponds to a ratio of a void volume VE to a total volume VT of the tread such that TEV=VE/VT since Muhlhoff et al teaches providing a pneumatic passenger tire having a tread (tread element height = 5 mm to 8 mm) such that volume void ratio is 22 to 30% to ensure good performance in terms of grip on wet ground [paragraphs 30, 57].
8) Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier et al (US 2018/0065416) in view of Guichon #1 (US 2012/0267021), Europe 757 (EP 739757), Korea 811 (KR 2014-0025811) and Sugata et al (JP 62-292508) as applied above and further in view of Guichon #2 (US 2014/0230980).
As to claim 25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Mosnier et al’s tire such that a maximum pitch of the tread pattern elements (PA, PB, PC) is between 22 mm and 40 mm since (1) Europe 757 teaches length MEDIUM PITCH = 105 to 120% length SMALL PITCH and length MEDIUM PITCH = 85 to 95% length LARGE PITCH and (2) Guichon #2 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (e.g. tire size 205/55R16) having a directional tread pattern [FIGURE 17] such that pitch length = 15 to 35 mm [paragraph 11].
9) Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier et al (US 2018/0065416) in view of Guichon #1 (US 2012/0267021), Europe 757 (EP 739757), Korea 811 (KR 2014-0025811) and Sugata et al (JP 62-292508) as applied above and further in view of TRACANADA (“Winter Tires: What You Should Know”, www.tracanada.ca).
As to claim 28, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Mosnier et al’s tire such that the tire has a 3PMSF (3 Peaks Mountain Snow Flake) winter certification indicated on at least one of its sidewalls since (1) Mosnier et al teaches that the tire may be used under wintery conditions with very cold temperatures without deterioration of performance [paragraph 33] and that the tire is particularly advantageous on snow covered and/or icy ground [paragraph 35], (2) Sugata et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 185/70R13) having a directional tread pattern [FIGURE 1] such that groove area ratio (surface void ratio) = 30 to 50% to improve on snow performance, improve on ice performance and improve wear resistance [machine translation] and (3) TRACANADA teaches that a Three Peak Mountain Snowflake Symbol is provided on a sidewall of a tire when the tire meets specific snow traction performance requirements and have been designed specifically for use in severe snow conditions.
Remarks
10) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15-28 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
With respect to applicant’s description in the supplemental amendment filed
11-7-25 of the interview on 10-14-25, examiner comments: INTERVIEW RECORD OK.
11) No claim is allowed.
12) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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 B Smith (Whatley) 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
March 14, 2026