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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/18/2026 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann (WO 2014183890 with English Machine Translation) in view of Cambon et al. (US 2016/0297252) (Cambon) (of record) and Nagasawa (WO 2020100336 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Hoffmann discloses a heavy vehicle tire (title; [0031]) comprising a tread (1, 2) intended to come into contact with a ground via a tread surface (see Fig. 1; [0038]; [0033]), the tread surface having an axial width L0 measured between a first axial edge of the tread and a second axial edge of the tread (see Modified Figure 1 below; [0038]). Examiner notes that the limitation “for a heavy vehicle of construction plant type” is merely intended use language located in the preamble and, thus, fails to include structure that excludes viewing any tire as satisfying the claimed heavy vehicle tire of constructure plant type. Similarly, Examiner notes that the limitation “when the tire mounted on a normal rim is inflated to a normal pressure Pn and compressed under a nominal load Zn” is also intended use language that fails to define structure beyond the claimed tread surface. Hoffmann further discloses that the tread (1, 2) comprises cuts (5, 6a+6b) that separate raised elements and have a maximum depth D0 (see Fig. 1; [0040]-[0042]), the tread (1, 2) comprising, on each side of an equatorial plane, at least one outer longitudinal cut (5) having a mean line and at least one inner longitudinal cut (6a+6b) having a mean line (see Modified Figure 1 below; [0040]-[0042]). Hoffmann further discloses that the outer longitudinal cut (5) is positioned at a distance from the equatorial plane that is about 50% of half of the axial width L0 (see Modified Figure 1 below), suggesting the claimed range of at least equal to 0.5*L0/2. Hoffmann further discloses that the inner longitudinal cut (6a+6b) is positioned at a distance from the equatorial plane that is about 25% of half of the axial width L0 (see Modified Figure 1 below), suggesting the claimed range of at most equal to 0.4*L0/2. 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). Hoffmann further discloses that the at least one outer longitudinal cut (5) extends about an entire circumference of the tire and comprises an outer radial portion that opens onto the tread surface (see Fig. 1; [0038]; [0040]), and the at least one inner longitudinal cut (6a+6b) comprises an inner radial portion that extends about an entire circumference of the tire, does not open onto the tread surface, and extends radially on the inside of the outer radial portion of the outer longitudinal cut (see Fig. 1; [0041]-[0042]). Hoffmann further discloses that the inner radial portion is located entirely on the radially inner side of the outer radial portion and is intended to open onto the tread surface after partial wear of the tread (see Fig. 1; [0041]-[0042]), which would necessarily be beyond a radial depth corresponding to a radially innermost point of the outer radial portion of the outer longitudinal cut (5). Hoffmann fails to explicitly disclose, however, specific values for a height HE1 and width WE1 of the outer longitudinal cut (5) or a height HI2 and width WI2 of the inner longitudinal cut (6a+6b).
PNG
media_image1.png
409
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Hoffmann
Cambon teaches a similar heavy vehicle tire (title; abstract) comprising a tread (10) with a plurality of cuts (1, 2) that separate raised elements in the tread (10) (see Fig. 1; [0038]-[0040]). Cambon further teaches that the cuts (1, 2) include an outer longitudinal cut (1) that contains an outer radial portion (11) that opens onto the tread surface (100) (see Fig. 2b; [0041]) and an inner longitudinal cut (2) that contains an inner radial portion (22) that does not open onto the tread surface (100) (see Fig. 2b; [0040]). Cambon further teaches that each of the outer radial portion (11) and the inner radial portion (22) have a mean width equal to 6 mm ([0044]; [0040]; [0067]-[0068]). Cambon further teaches that the outer radial portion (11) has a height equal to 7 mm ([0044]; [0067]-[0068]), making the width of the outer radial portion (11) be equal to 0.86 (6/7) times its height, suggesting the claimed range of at least equal to 0.6 times the height. Cambon further teaches that the inner radial portion (22) has a height equal to 6 mm ([0044]; [0067]-[0068]), which is equal to its width, suggesting the claimed range of at least equal to 0.6 times the height. Cambon further teaches that configuring the cuts (1, 2) in this way helps to ensure suitable drainage performance throughout the service life of the tread (10) ([0013]; [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the heights and widths of the outer radial portion and the inner radial portion disclosed by Hoffmann to meet the claimed ranges, as taught by Cambon, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help to ensure suitable drainage performance throughout the service life of the tread.
Modified Hoffmann further discloses that the tread (Hoffmann: 1, 2) can comprise sipes (Hoffmann: [0012]; [0018]; [0034]). Modified Hoffmann fails to explicitly disclose, however, the claimed pair of alternating sipes.
However, the claimed sipe configuration is known in the art. For instance, Nagasawa teaches a similar tire for a heavy vehicle (title; [0010]) comprising a tread surface having an axial width (TW) measured between a first and second axial edge (T) of the tread (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0017]), the tread comprising outer longitudinal cuts (21) and inner longitudinal cuts (22, 321) that delimit middle land portions (32) and shoulder land portions (31) of the tread (see Fig. 2; [0018]; [0036]-[0037]). Nagasawa further teaches that the tread comprises a plurality of alternating sipes (311+322B) that each extend from an axial edge (T) of the tread to a respective outer longitudinal cut (21) positioned on an opposite side of the equatorial plane from the axial edge (T) (see Figs. 2 and 7; [0080]; [0082]), the sipes (311+322B) each comprising multiple sipe segments (311, 322B), which extend over a portion of the axial width (TW) such that the axial ends of each sipe segment (311, 322B) is in line with an axial end of an adjacent sipe segment (311, 322B), each sipe segment (311, 322B) separated only by the longitudinal cuts (21, 22, 321) (see Figs. 2 and 7; [0082]). Nagasawa further teaches that providing the tread with these alternating sipes (311+322B) enhances the drainage performance of the tire ([0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tread disclosed by modified Hoffmann to include the claimed alternating sipes, as taught by Nagasawa, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the drainage performance of the tread. Thus, modified Hoffmann satisfies all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hoffmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Cambon discloses that the outer radial portion (Cambon: 11) of the at least one outer longitudinal cut (Cambon: 1) has a mean width equal to 6 mm and a height equal to 7 mm (Cambon: [0044]; [0040]; [0067]-[0068]), making the mean width equal to 0.86 (6/7) times the height, suggesting the claimed ranges of at most equal to 2 times the height and at most equal to the height. Therefore, since modified Hoffmann includes the teachings from Cambon regarding the heights and widths of the cuts, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Hoffmann to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 2.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Hoffmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cambon further teaches that the maximum depth D0 of the cuts (Cambon: 1, 2) is 13 mm (Cambon: [0044]; [0067]-[0068]), making the depth of the outer radial portion (7 mm) equal to 0.54 times the maximum depth D0, suggesting the claimed ranges of at least equal to D0/4 or D0/3 and at most equal to 2*D0/3. Thus, since Cambon teaches that configuring the cuts (Cambon: 1, 2) in this way leads to suitable drainage performance throughout the service life of the tread (Cambon: 10) (Cambon: [0013]; [0063]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the depth of the outer radial portion disclosed by modified Hoffmann to meet the claimed ranges because they would have had reasonable expectation of success based on the teachings of Cambon.
Regarding claim 5, modified Hoffmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cambon further teaches that the at least one outer longitudinal cut (Cambon: 1) comprises an inner radial portion (Cambon: 13’) that opens into its outer radial portion (Cambon: 11) (Cambon: see Fig. 2b; [0052]). Cambon further teaches that the inner radial portion (Cambon: 13’) has a height of 6 mm (Cambon: [0047]; [0044]; [0067]-[0068]; see Figs. 1-4). Cambon further teaches that the inner radial portion (Cambon: 13’) is a sipe (Cambon: [0052]; [0047]), and it is known in the art that sipes generally have a mean width of less than 2 mm (Hoffmann: [0034]). Thus, it would have been obvious for the inner radial portion (Cambon: 13’) to have a mean width of less than 0.33 (2/6) times its height, encompassing the claimed range of at most equal to 0.2 times the height. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Cambon further teaches that configuring the outer longitudinal cut (Cambon: 1) with this inner radial portion (Cambon: 13’) improves the traction performance of the tire (Cambon: [0027]; [0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the outer longitudinal cut disclosed by modified Hoffmann to have the claimed inner radial portion, as taught by Cambon, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the traction performance of the tire.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hoffmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Cambon teaches that the inner radial portion (Cambon: 22) of the at least one inner longitudinal cut (Cambon: 2) has a mean width that is equal to its height (Cambon: [0044]; [0040]; [0067]-[0068]), suggesting the claimed ranges of at most equal to 2 times the height and at most equal to the height. Therefore, since modified Hoffmann includes the teachings from Cambon regarding the heights and widths of the cuts, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Hoffmann to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 6.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Hoffmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cambon further teaches that the inner radial portion (Cambon: 22) of the at least one inner longitudinal cut (Cambon: 2) extends radially inwards down to a radial depth of 13 mm, which is equal to the maximum depth D0 of the cuts (Cambon: 1, 2) (Cambon: [0044]; [0067]-[0068]), suggesting the claimed ranges of at least equal to D0/2 of 2*D0/3 and at most equal to D0. Thus, since Cambon teaches that configuring the cuts (Cambon: 1, 2) in this way leads to suitable drainage performance throughout the service life of the tread (Cambon: 10) (Cambon: [0013]; [0063]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the depth of the inner radial portion disclosed by modified Hoffmann to meet the claimed ranges because they would have had reasonable expectation of success based on the teachings of Cambon.
Regarding claim 9, modified Hoffmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cambon further teaches that the at least one inner longitudinal cut (Cambon: 2) comprises an outer radial portion (Cambon: 23) that opens onto the tread surface (Cambon: 100) and into its inner radial portion (Cambon: 22) (Cambon: see Fig. 2b; [0052]). Cambon further teaches that the outer radial portion (Cambon: 23) has a height of 7 mm (Cambon: [0047]; [0044]; [0067]-[0068]; see Figs. 1-4). Cambon further teaches that the outer radial portion (Cambon: 23) is a sipe (Cambon: [0052]; [0047]), and it is known in the art that sipes generally have a mean width of less than 2 mm (Hoffmann: [0034]). Thus, it would have been obvious for the outer radial portion (Cambon: 23) to have a mean width of less than 0.29 (2/7) times its height, encompassing the claimed range of at most equal to 0.2 times the height. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Cambon further teaches that configuring the inner longitudinal cut (Cambon: 2) with this outer radial portion (Cambon: 23) improves the traction performance of the tire (Cambon: [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the inner longitudinal cut disclosed by modified Hoffmann to have the claimed outer radial portion, as taught by Cambon, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the traction performance of the tire.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, modified Hoffmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cambon further teaches that the at least one outer longitudinal cut (Cambon: 1) is connected to at least one outer transverse cut (Cambon: 6, 7) that is open at an axial end of the tread (Cambon: 10) (Cambon: see Fig. 1; [0043]). Cambon further teaches that the at least one inner longitudinal cut (Cambon: 2) is connected to at least one inner transverse cut (Cambon: 6, 7) that is open at an axial end of the tread (Cambon: 10) (Cambon: see Fig. 1; [0043]). Thus, since Cambon teaches that configuring the tread (Cambon: 10) in this way leads to suitable drainage performance throughout the service life of the tread (Cambon: 10) (Cambon: [0013]; [0063]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the tread disclosed by modified Hoffmann to include the claimed transverse cuts because they would have had reasonable expectation of success based on the teachings of Cambon.
Regarding claim 11, modified Hoffmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Cambon further teaches that each outer transverse cut (Cambon: 6, 7) comprises an outer radial portion (Cambon: 61, 71) that has a height/depth equal to the height/depth of the outer radial portion (Cambon: 11) of the outer longitudinal cut (Cambon: 1) (Cambon: [0044]; [0067]-[0068]; see Fig. 2), which is equal to 7 mm. Cambon further teaches that a mean width of the outer radial portion (Cambon: 6, 7) of each outer transverse cut (Cambon: 6, 7) is equal to 6 mm (Cambon: [0044]), which is equal to 0.86 (6/7) times its height, suggesting the claimed range of at least equal to 0.6 times the height. Therefore, since modified Hoffmann includes the teachings from Cambon regarding the outer transverse cut, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Hoffmann to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, modified Hoffmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 12. Cambon further teaches that each inner transverse cut (Cambon: 6, 7) comprises an inner radial portion (Cambon: 62, 72) that has a height equal to the height of the inner radial portion (Cambon: 22) of the inner longitudinal cut (Cambon: 2) (Cambon: [0044]; [0067]-[0068]; see Fig. 2). Cambon further teaches that a mean width of the inner radial portion (Cambon: 62, 72) of each inner transverse cut (Cambon: 6, 7) is equal to its height, suggesting the claimed range of at least equal to 0.6 times its height. Cambon also teaches that the radial depth of the inner radial portion (Cambon: 62, 72) of each inner transverse cut (Cambon: 6, 7) is equal to the radial depth of the inner radial portion (Cambon: 22) of the inner longitudinal cut (Cambon: 2) (Cambon: [0044]; [0067]-[0068]; see Fig. 2). Therefore, since modified Hoffmann includes the teachings from Cambon regarding the outer transverse cut, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Hoffmann to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, modified Hoffmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, modified Hoffmann discloses that the outer longitudinal cut (Hoffmann: 5) has a mean line positioned at a distance from the equatorial plane that is about 50% of half of the axial width L0 (see Modified Figure 1 below), suggesting the claimed range of at most equal to 0.8*L0/2.
Regarding claim 15, modified Hoffmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, modified Hoffmann discloses that the inner longitudinal cut (Hoffmann: 6a+6b) has a mean line positioned at a distance from the equatorial plane that is about 25% of half of the axial width L0 (see Modified Figure 1 below), suggesting the claimed range of at least equal to 0.15*L0/2.
Regarding claim 16, modified Hoffmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, modified Hoffmann discloses that the outer longitudinal cut (Hoffmann: 5) has a mean line positioned at a distance from the equatorial plane that is about 50% of half of the axial width L0, and the inner longitudinal cut (Hoffmann: 6a+6b) has a mean line positioned at a distance from the equatorial plane that is about 25% of half of the axial width L0 (see Modified Figure 1 below), making a difference between the two distances be about equal to 0.25*L0/2, suggesting the claimed range of at least equal to 0.2*L0/2.
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann (WO 2014183890 with English Machine Translation) in view of Cambon et al. (US 2016/0297252) (Cambon) (of record) and Nagasawa (WO 2020100336 with English Machine Translation) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rolland (US 2013/0284334) (of record).
Regarding claims 17-21, modified Hoffmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Hoffmann fails to explicitly disclose, however, a specific volumetric void ratio TEV of the tread (Hoffmann: 1, 2) or a specific surface-area void ratio TES of the tread (Hoffmann: 1, 2).
Rolland teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a tread (102) comprising a plurality of cuts (110, 112, 114, 116, 118) defining a plurality of raised elements (88, 90, 92, 94 ,96, 98) (see Fig. 2; [0033]-[0034]). Rolland further teaches that the tread (100) has a void volume ratio TEV (VVR) between 0.1 and 0.2 in a new state and between 0.05 to 0.2 in a worn state ([0048]), overlapping the claimed range of at least equal to 12% and suggesting the claimed range of at most equal to 20%. Rolland further teaches that the tread (102) has a contact surface ratio (CSR) from 0.8 to 0.9 ([0046]), meaning that the tread (102) has a surface-area void ratio TES of 0.1 (1-0.9) to 0.2 (1-0.8), suggesting the claimed ranges of at least equal to 10% and at most equal to 24%. Thus, Rolland also necessarily discloses that a ratio TEV/TES between the void volume ratio TEV (VVR) and the surface-area void ratio TES is between 0.5 (0.1/0.2) and 2.0 (0.2/0.1), overlapping the claimed range of at least equal to 0.8. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Rolland further teaches that configuring the tread to have this void volume ratio (VVR) and this contact surface ratio (CSR) helps the tire to maintain wet traction ([0045]; [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the tread disclosed by modified Hoffmann to have a volumetric void ratio and a surface-area void ratio within the claimed ranges in claims 17-21, as suggested by Rolland, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help the tire to maintain good wet traction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claim 1 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.
As such, claims 1-21 stand rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights