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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 17, 2025 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6-11, 16, 18-21 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2011-140268; machine translation relied upon) in view of Fujiwara (JP2011-143897; machine translation relied upon), Saito (JP58-177703; abstract relied upon), Akashi (JP2013-180590; machine translation relied upon) and Nakata (WO2019/124037; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2021/0162816 relied upon).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 24, Suzuki teaches a tire comprising first and second circumferential main grooves 2, wherein a resonator (grooves 4 and 5 collectively) is formed at an intermediate land portion between the first and second circumferential main grooves, the resonator comprises an auxiliary groove 4 whose both ends terminate within the intermediate land portion, a branch groove 5, such a groove having a smaller cross-sectional area than the auxiliary groove, groove depths (claimed D1) and widths (claimed W2) of the main grooves are, for example, 6.9 to 8.2 mm and 8 to 18 mm, respectively, and the auxiliary groove has a groove width (claimed W3) of 2 to 10 mm (machine translation at page 2; figures 1-2). Such teachings result in D1/W2 of 38% (6.9/18) to 103% (8.2/8) and W3/D1 of 24% (2/8.2) to 145% (10/6.9), overlapping the claimed ranges. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use main groove widths and depths, and auxiliary groove widths such that D1/W2 is 50% or less and W3/D1 is 80% or less (claim 1) or 60% or less (claim 8) because Suzuki teaches overlapping ranges for these ratios (see machine translation at page 2 and figures 1-2). Suzuki does not specifically disclose that the branch groove includes a tunnel portion. In a tire similarly directed to resonator use, Fujiwara teaches using a branch groove 13 having a tread surface-side sipe portion 15 open to the tread surface and extending inward in the radial direction, a tunnel portion 14 extending continuously from the tread surface-side sipe portion inward in the radial direction, the tunnel portion having a larger groove width than the tread surface-side sipe portion, and a bottom-side sipe portion 15 extending continuously from the tunnel portion inward in the radial direction, the bottom-side sipe portion having a smaller groove width than the tunnel portion (machine translation at pages 7-8; figure 5b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a branch portion having surface-side, tunnel, and bottom-side portions as taught by Fujiwara as the branch portion of a resonator in the tire of Suzuki as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Further, Suzuki teaches that a groove can have curved walls (figure 1b – see bottom of groove), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use round walls (reading on the claimed convexly curved inward walls in a radial direction and outward in a width direction) for the first circumferential main groove in order to achieve the conventional benefits of rounded groove walls. Suzuki does not specifically disclose the radius of curvature of the groove wall. Saito teaches using a radius of curvature for a groove wall of larger than 2 mm and smaller than 5 mm (abstract), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a radius of curvature as taught by Saito for the curvature of the groove walls of the first circumferential main groove of Suzuki (combined) in order to prevent demold splitting and groove bottom cracking (see Saito at abstract). Suzuki (combined) does not specifically disclose that the radially inner end of the branch groove is at the same position as a groove bottom. Akashi teaches a circumferential groove 10 height of H (machine translation at page 6; figure 3), as well as depicting that the branch groove 50a (figure 2a) extends the full length H to the bottom of the circumferential groove (figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the bottom of the branch groove positioned at the same depth as the bottom of the circumferential groove as taught by Akashi in the tire of Suzuki (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Suzuki teaches a groove depth, for example of 6.9 to 8.2 mm, the language “for example” teaching or suggesting that the groove depth can be somewhat greater or lesser than this quite narrow range, but does not specifically disclose that each of the first and second circumferential main grooves is 6.5 mm or less. Nakata teaches using a circumferential groove depth of preferably 6.5 mm or less, and preferably 5.5 mm or more (paragraph [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a circumferential groove depth as taught by Nakata in the tire of Suzuki (combined) in order to obtain rigidity of the land portion, improve wear resistance, and maintain drainage performance (see Nakata at paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki teaches a groove depth (claimed D3) of the auxiliary groove of 2 to 8.2 mm (machine translation at page 2), which in combination with the claimed D1 set forth above, results in a range of D3/D1 of 24% (2/8.2) to 119% (8.2/6.9), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki teaches that the branch groove 5 has a groove depth (claimed D2) of 2 to 7 mm (machine translation at page 2), which in combination with the claimed D1 set forth above, results in a range of D2/D1 of 24% (2/8.2) to 101% (7/6.9), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki teaches specific embodiments having a tire size of 255/40ZR19 (machine translation at page 4), such tires having a tread width on the order of 255 mm, and as is set forth above, the circumferential main grooves can have a width of 8 to 18 mm, resulting in a range of about 3% (8/255) to 7% (18/255), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki teaches a specific embodiment having the branch groove making an angle (claimed θ1) with respect to the width direction falling within the claimed 20 to 60 degree range (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki teaches a specific embodiment having the auxiliary groove making an angle (claimed θ3) with respect to the width direction greater than the angle (claimed θ1) of the branch groove with respect to the width direction (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki teaches that the length of the auxiliary groove is, for example, 20 to 65 mm (machine translation at page 2 states 20mm to 20mm, but paragraph [0014] of the original Japanese document states 20 – 65 mm), and the pitch is depicted as being only slightly greater than the length of the auxiliary groove, thus based on the claimed D2 range set forth above, results in a P1/D2 ratio of about 2.9 (20/7) to 32.5 (65/2), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki teaches or suggests that the resonator is disposed only on one side of the equatorial plane (figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki is not particularly limiting with regards to the widths of the land portions, as well as teaching a specific embodiment with a land portion on the order of 30% of the tread width (figure 2 – 2nd land portion from right in figure), such teachings suggesting that the center land portion can be 30% of the tread width.
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki is not limiting with regards to the negative ratio of the tread, but does not specifically disclose that the negative ratio is 25 to 30%. In a tire similarly directed to the use of resonators, Fujiwara teaches a specific embodiment having a negative ratio of 28% (machine translation at page 8 – Example 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a negative ratio as taught by Fujiwara in the tire of Suzuki (combined) in order to have sufficient drainage and enough contact area (see Fujiwara machine translation at page 5 – first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 21, given the groove depths disclosed above by Suzuki, suggests tread rubber thickness can be 8 mm or less, because the tread needs to be thicker than the groove depths, and all of the grooves can be less than 8 mm.
Regarding claims 25-26, Fujiwara teaches that the bottom-side sipe portion has a substantially constant groove width the same as a substantially constant groove width of the surface-side sipe portion (machine translation at pages 7-8; figure 5b).
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Fujiwara, Saito, Akashi and Nakata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US Pub. No. 2010/0175799).
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 14, Suzuki does not specifically disclose that the auxiliary groove of the resonator comprises first and second auxiliary groove portions having features as claimed. In a tire similarly directed to using resonators to reduce noise, Takahashi teaches using a resonator where the first auxiliary groove portion extends to a first tire circumferential side as being gradually far from the first circumferential main groove, and a second auxiliary groove portion continuous from an end of the first auxiliary groove portion on a side close to the first circumferential main groove, of both ends of the first auxiliary groove portion in an extending direction, the second auxiliary groove portion extending to a second tire circumferential side, an acute angle-side inclination angle θ6 at an end of the second auxiliary groove portion, on a side connecting to the first auxiliary groove portion is larger than an acute-side inclination angle θ4 (which is ≈ 0) at an end of the first auxiliary groove portion, on a side connecting to the second auxiliary groove portion, with respect to the tire width direction, and a length L1 of the first auxiliary groove portion of the auxiliary groove of the resonator is 2.0 to 8.0 times a length L2 of the second auxiliary groove portion of the auxiliary groove of the resonator (paragraph [0160]; figure 33; annotated figure 33 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a resonator shape as taught by Takahashi in the tire of Suzuki (combined) in order to suppress striking sounds (see Takahashi at paragraph [0021]).
PNG
media_image1.png
850
1089
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki teaches a specific embodiment having a tire size of 255/40ZR19 (machine translation at page 4), such a tire having a tread width of approximately 255 mm, as well as teaching circumferential main groove widths of 8 to 18 mm (machine translation at page 2), and also depicting the land portion with the resonator to be on the order of three times the width of the main groove (figure 2). For a combined embodiment having resonators extending most of the width of the land portion, as depicted in figure 33 of Takahashi, would result in a range of resonator width of up to about 24 to 54 mm, or about 9% (24/255) to 21% (54/255) of the ground contact width of the tire, overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, the length L1 (depicted on the annotated figure above) is 1.0 to 5.0 times a length L3 (while not depicted above due to the shading of the branch groove, extends the length of the branch groove) of the branch groove of the resonator (see annotated figure 33 above).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi teaches the use of diagonally oriented straight grooves (figure 12) as well as diagonally oriented curving grooves (figure 3), suggesting that the horizontally oriented grooves of figure 33 could also be curved, resulting in an acute angle-side inclination angle of the first auxiliary portion of the auxiliary groove of the resonator with respect to a tire width direction increases, as being far from the first circumferential main groove.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Fujiwara, Saito, Akashi, Nakata and Takahashi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Takahashi II (JP2008-179289; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki (combined) does not specifically disclose that the branch groove of the resonator is connected to a connecting portion between the first and second auxiliary groove portions in the auxiliary groove of the resonator. Takahashi II teaches that the resonator can be arbitrarily shaped, and connecting a branch groove 2 of a resonator to a connecting portion between first and second auxiliary groove portions 8 and 8 in the auxiliary groove of a resonator (machine translation at page 5; figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the branch groove to a connecting portion between the first and second auxiliary groove portions as taught by Takahashi II in the tire of Suzuki (combined) as a known location to connect the branch groove with the predictable result of having a functional resonator.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Fujiwara, Saito, Akashi and Nakata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Odagawa (JP2012-171578; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 22, Suzuki teaches that the intermediate land portion is located on a tire equatorial plane, but does not specifically disclose that the intermediate land portion is provided with a narrow groove on the tire equatorial plane. In a tire similarly directed to using resonators, Odagawa teaches providing a narrow groove 321 on the center land portion including the equatorial plane (machine translation at page 5, last paragraph; figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a narrow groove on the equatorial land portion as taught by Odagawa in the tire of Suzuki (combined) in order to reduce the stress applied to the land portion and ensure drainage (see Odagawa machine translation at page 6, first paragraph). As Suzuki is not particularly limiting as to the exact locations of the land potions, suggests that such a narrow groove in a combined embodiment can be provided on the tire equatorial plane as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Suzuki in view of Fujiwara, Saito, Akashi and Nakata as is set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 September 27, 2025
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749