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 1/29/2026. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10-16 are pending for examination.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10-16 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 1 recites the limitation " the diverging region" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously states that there are two diverging regions, but does not clarify which diverging region is non-parallel to the first groove wall. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as both diverging regions being non-parallel.
6. Claims 2, 5-8, and 10-16 are also indefinite for depending on an indefinite base in claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
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 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2010/0096060 A1 – of Record) in view of Sakaguchi et al. (US 2010/0122759 A1 – of Record), Matsumoto (US Patent No. 5,921,303 – of Record), and Kim (KR 2003-0050417 A – of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a tire (Para. [0022]) comprising a tread portion (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4) and a pair of sidewall surfaces (Fig. 1, outside of recessed rib), where the tread has a pair of shoulders (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 63 and an equatorial region (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 61). The tread also includes a circumferential groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 53) forming a secondary rib (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 631) where the groove has a first groove wall and a second groove wall (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 5). Suzuki also teaches that the rib has a radially outer width (Fig. 1, Right below the tread surface) and a groove bottom width (Fig. 1, at the groove bottom) However, Suzuki does not teach that the secondary rib is recessed.
In an analogous art, Sakaguchi teaches a tire (Para. [0023]) with a shoulder circumferential rib (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 5) that forms a recessed rib (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 42, H) in the shoulder portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Suzuki with Sakaguchi in order to form the secondary rib has a recessed rib. This modification will suppress uneven wear in the shoulder region. However, modified Suzuki does not teach that the groove has a protruding portion.
In an analogous art, Matsumoto teaches a tire with a circumferential groove (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 10) where the second groove wall facing toward from the tire equatorial plane is provided with a protruding portion (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 10). The protruding portion of the second groove wall comprises two diverging regions (Recreated Fig. 7 below) that is non-parallel to part of the first groove wall and a non-diverging region (Recreated Fig. 7 below) that is parallel to a portion of the first groove wall. Matsumoto teaches a that the groove bottom has a semi-circle arc (Fig. 7) and any point along the groove wall in between the non-diverging region and the groove bottom can be considered where a transition happens between the two.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Suzuki with Matsumoto to add the protruding portion to the second groove wall. This modification will ensure the crushing deformation of the groove (Matsumoto; Col. 7, Lines 55-61). With the recess added to Suzuki, as the circumferential groove wall extends at the same angle as the tire sidewall (Suzuki; Fig. 1), the radially inner width located at the non-diverging portion of the recess will have a smaller width than the radially outer and groove bottom widths due to the recess in the wall (Matsumoto; Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 10). Modified Suzuki doesn’t teach that the width combinations change a concentration of strain magnitude at the groove bottom; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the groove of modified Suzuki to do so as it has the same structure as the claimed groove. However, modified Suzuki does not teach the radial extension of the diverging regions.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches a tire with a protrusion on a circumferential groove (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 4) where the protrusion comprises two diverging regions (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. H2-H3, H4-H5). The total height of the protruding portion is H2-H5 which is 0.33H to 0.83H (Para. [17], [20]), the heights of the diverging regions are H2-H3 which is 0-0.33H (Para. [17], [18]) and H4-H5 which is 0-0.5H (Para. [19], [20]). This would make the total radial extension of the diverging regions be between 0% and 100% of the radial extension of the protruding portion. Kim does not expressly disclose a value of 25% to 45%; however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the total radial extension of the diverging regions within the claimed range since Kim discloses the total radial extension of the diverging regions as between 0% and 100%, said range overlapping the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Suzuki with Kim to have the diverging regions be 0 to 100% of the height of the protruding portion. This modification will allow the groove to maintain the intended design shape to exert its performance (Kim; Para. [22]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Suzuki teaches that the surface area of the first groove wall is less than the second groove wall as the protrusion on the second groove wall (Matsumoto; Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 10) will increase the wall’s surface area.
Regarding claim 5, modified Suzuki teaches that the radial extension of the circumferential groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 53) is essentially parallel to the outer surface of the recessed rib.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki teaches that the circumferential grove has a groove bottom that comprises a circular arc (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 53).
Regarding claim 7, modified Suzuki teaches that the radial extension of the protruding portion (Kim; Fig. 3, Ref. Num. H2-H5) is 33% to 83% (Para. [17], [20]) of the radial extension of the second groove wall. Kim does not expressly disclose a value of 50% to 70%; however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the radial extension of the protruding portion within the claimed range since Kim discloses the radial extension of the protruding portion as between 33% to 83%, said range overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, modified Suzuki teaches that the protruding portion starts (Kim, Fig. 3, Ref. Num. H2) at a position of 16.7% to 50% (Para. [17]) of the radial extension of the second groove wall and ends at a radial position (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. H5) of 83.3% to 100% (Para. [20]) of the second groove wall. Kim does not expressly disclose a value of 30% to 50%; however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the start position of the protruding portion within the claimed range since Kim discloses the start position of the protruding portion as between 16.7% to 50% (Para. [17]), said range overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki teaches that the tread portion comprises at least one main groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 52) forming a main rib (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 63) located on the side of the circumferential groove closer to the equatorial region.
Regarding claim 13, modified Suzuki teaches the tire of claim 1 as detailed above and also teaches the tire being mounted on a rim for being connected to an axle of a vehicle (Para. [0026])
Regarding claim 15, modified Suzuki teaches that the bottom of the groove past the protrusion curve until the groove has a width of 0 at the bottom (Matsumoto; Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 10), That means that there will be a second section radially inside of the protrusion that has the same width as the section radially outside of the protrusion.
Regarding claim 16, modified Suzuki teaches that the protruding portion is only located on the recessed rib (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 10).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2010/0096060 A1) in view of Sakaguchi et al. (US 2010/0122759 A1), Matsumoto (US Patent No. 5,921,303), and Kim (KR 2003-0050417 A) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mathews (US 2009/0065115 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 11, modified Suzuki does not teach that the main rib comprises several sipes.
In an analogous art, Mathews teaches a tire with a circumferential groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 18) and a recessed rib (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 24) where the main rib (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 12) comprises several sipes (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 34) that are perpendicular to the circumferential groove and connect to the circumferential grooves. These sipes have a depth of 75% of the circumferential groove depth (Para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Suzuki with Mathews in order to add sipes to the main groove that connect with the circumferential groove and have a depth of 75% of the circumferential groove depth. This modification will disrupt the spread of damage on the outer end of the main rib (Mathews; Para. [0021]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Suzuki teaches that the exterior surface of the recessed rib is bald (Matthews; Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 24).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2010/0096060 A1), Sakaguchi et al. (US 2010/0122759 A1) and Kim (KR 2003-0050417 A) applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suita (US 2020/0361247 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki teaches a tire (Para. [0022]) comprising a tread portion (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4) and a pair of sidewall surfaces (Fig. 1, outside of recessed rib), where the tread has a pair of shoulders (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 63 and an equatorial region (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 61). The tread also includes a circumferential groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 53) forming a secondary rib (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 631) where the groove has a first groove wall and a second groove wall (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 5). Suzuki also teaches that the rib has a radially outer width (Fig. 1, Right below the tread surface) and a groove bottom width (Fig. 1, at the groove bottom) However, Suzuki does not teach that the secondary rib is recessed.
In an analogous art, Sakaguchi teaches a tire (Para. [0023]) with a shoulder circumferential rib (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 5) that forms a recessed rib (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 42, H) in the shoulder portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Suzuki with Sakaguchi in order to form the secondary rib has a recessed rib. This modification will suppress uneven wear in the shoulder region. However, modified Suzuki does not teach that the groove has a protruding portion.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches a tire (Para. [14]) with a circumferential groove (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 2) where both the first and second groove wall are provided with a protruding portion (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 4). The protruding portion of the second groove wall comprises two diverging regions (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. H2-H3, H4-H5) that is non-parallel to part of the first groove wall and a non-diverging region (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. H3-H4) that is parallel to a portion of the first groove wall. The total height of the protruding portion is H2-H5 which is 0.33H to 0.83H (Para. [17], [20]), the heights of the diverging regions are H2-H3 which is 0-0.33H (Para. [17], [18]) and H4-H5 which is 0-0.5H (Para. [19], [20]). This would make the total radial extension of the diverging regions be between 0% and 100% of the radial extension of the protruding portion. Kim does not expressly disclose a value of 25% to 45%; however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the total radial extension of the diverging regions within the claimed range since Kim discloses the total radial extension of the diverging regions as between 0% and 100%, said range overlapping the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Suzuki with Kim to add theses protruding portions to the groove walls of the circumferential groove. This modification will allow the groove to maintain the intended design shape while the tire is loaded (Kim; Para. [22]) which would be relevant to the circumferential groove of Sakaguchi as the recessed rib is part of the road contact surface (Para. [0030]), the circumferential groove forming the recessed rib will also deform. With the recess added to Suzuki, as the circumferential groove wall extends at the same angle as the tire sidewall (Fig. 1), the radially inner width located at the non-diverging portion of the recess will have a smaller width than the radially outer and groove bottom widths due to the recess in the wall (Kim; Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 31). Modified Suzuki doesn’t teach that the width combinations change a concentration of strain magnitude at the groove bottom; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the groove of modified Suzuki to do so as it has the same structure as the claimed groove. However, modified Suzuki in view of Kim does not teach a tire mold for molding this tire.
In an analogous art, Suita teaches a tire mold (Para. [0010]) that includes a groove molding portion with a protrusion (blade) (Para. [0010]) that protrudes from the tire mold to mold a circumferential groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 36) of the tire.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Suzuki with Suita in order to create a tire mold with a groove molding blade to mold the tread pattern of the modified Suzuki. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create a tire mold for this trad pattern as tire molds with blades are a common and known way to mold tire treads.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims that the rejection of record does not teach the new limitation of the bottom groove formed of a semicircle that transitions to one of the diverging regions. However, Matsumoto teaches a that the groove bottom has a semi-circle arc (Fig. 7) and any point along the groove wall in between the non-diverging region and the groove bottom can be considered where a transition happens between the two. There is nothing in the claims that state the transition region cannot be a curved surface.
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