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 10/09/2025. Claims 1-15 are pending for examination.
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 1-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belarbi (WO 2020/058622 A1 – of Record) in view of Fujiwara (JP 2010-260403 A – of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Belarbi teaches a heavy-duty vehicle tire tread (Para. [0069]) comprising cuts (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 313) delineating raised elements (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 21) having a thickness (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. Hm) along a radial direction. The tread has at least one substantially longitudinal cut (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 313) having a tangent at any point which forms a 0-degree angle to the longitudinal direction where the longitudinal cut has at least one external cavity (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 311) open on to the tread surface having and each external cavity has two substantially longitudinal sipes (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 313) extending along the longitudinal cut along two connection points (See Recreated Fig. 2 below). The external cavity has a length (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. Lm) measured through the connection points and a width (Fig. 1) that is smaller than the length. Finally, the cavities have at least one oblique sipe (Fig. 2) that is not parallel to the first straight line and intersects the cavity; however, Belarbi does not teach that those oblique sipes intersect the cavity at a connection point on each axial side of the cavity.
In an analogous art, Fujiwara teaches a tire with a cavity (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 3) opening at the tread surface where there are oblique sipes connecting to the corners of the cavity (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Belarbi with Fujiwara in order to have the oblique sipes of Belarbi connect with the cavity at the corners of the cavity (connection points). This modification will suppress compression of the air in the cavities (Fujiwara; Para. [0021]). When the oblique sipes connect to all the corners of the cavity, there will be at least one oblique sipe connecting to a connection point on each axial side of the cavity (See Recreated Fig. 2 Below) and since each connection point is a corner of the external cavity, they will be defined by a pair of walls that extend in different axial and/or circumferential directions.
PNG
media_image1.png
587
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Belarbi teaches that the cavities have at least one oblique sipe (See Recreated Fig. 2 below) that is not parallel to the first straight line and intersects the cavity at a connection point (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 310) where the oblique sipe forms obtuse angles with at least two straight lines (See Recreated Fig. 2 below) at a point of any distance along that line from the connection point.
PNG
media_image2.png
587
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Belarbi teaches that the width of the external cavity is 8 mm (Para. [0071]).
Regarding claim 4, Belarbi teaches that the width of the external cavity is 8 mm (Para. [0071]).
Regarding claim 5, Belarbi teaches that the length of the external cavity is 33 mm (Para. [0072]) which is 4.13 times the width of the cavity.
Regarding claim 6, Belarbi teaches that the depth of the cavities is at least 0.9 times the thickness of the tread (Para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 7, Belarbi teaches that the depth of the cavities is at least 0.9 times the thickness of the tread (Para. [0038]), which overlaps with the claimed range of at most equal to the
thickness of the tread which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 10, Belarbi teaches that the depth of the sipes is equal to the depth of the internal cavities which is at least 0.9 times the thickness of the tread (Para. [0059]). Since the depth of the tread is 13 mm (Para. [0070]), that would make the depth of the sipe at least 11.7 mm.
Regarding claim 11, Belarbi teaches that the depth of the sipes is equal to the depth of the internal cavities which is at least 0.9 times the thickness of the tread (Para. [0059]), which overlaps with the claimed range of at most equal to the thickness of the tread which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 12, Belarbi teaches that the two connection points for the line D1 (See recreated fig. 2 above) are parallel to the longitudinal direction of the tire and the line D2 perpendicular to D1 is parallel to the transverse direction.
Regarding claim 13, Belarbi teaches three substantially longitudinal cuts (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 313), all three of which are complex cuts, comprising alternating external cavities (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 311) and internal cavities (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 312) hidden in the new state that are connected by a substantially longitudinal sipe (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 313).
Regarding claim 14, Belarbi teaches a tire for a heavy-duty vehicle (Para. [0069]) comprising the tread of claim 1 as detailed above.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belarbi (WO 2020/058622 A1) and Fujiwara (JP 2010-260403 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuda et al. (US Patent No. 4,884,606 – of Record)
Regarding claim 8, Belarbi does not teach the width of the sipes.
In an analogous art, Matsuda teaches sipes (Fig. 1b, Ref. Num. 4) for heavy-duty vehicles (Col. 4, Lines 19-22) that have a width of 0.5 to 1.5 mm (Col. 2, Lines 30-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Belarbi with Matsuda to have the sipes have a width of 0.5 to 1.5 mm. This modification will allow the ends of the sipes to close upon ground contact (Matsuda; Col. 2, Lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 9, modified Belarbi teaches that the sipes have a width of 0.5 to 1.5 mm (Matsuda; Col. 2, Lines 30-33), which overlaps with the claimed range of at most 1.2 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Belarbi (WO 2020/058622 A1 – of Record) and Fujiwara (JP 2010-260403 A).
Belarbi in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1; however, they do not teach that the at least one oblique sipes opening in to each axial cavity are symmetrically arranged. Belarbi teaches sipes that open to an external cavity of a longitudinal sipe (Fig. 2), but does not teach that they connect to a connection point made of two cavity walls that extend in different directions with at least one on each axial side of the cavity. Fujiwara then teaches that the sipes that connect to an external cavity should be connected to a connection point made of two cavity walls that extend in different directions with at least one on each axial side of the cavity (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 9). Fujiwara though only teaches embodiments with one sipe (Fig. 4), two sipes on the same axial side (Fig. 6), or three sipes (Fig. 7) and none of these embodiments have the sipe arranged symmetrically while connecting to connection points as claimed in claim 1. It is the examiner’s opinion that without the improper use of hindsight or destroying the references for their intended use, it would not have been obvious to combine prior art references in the manner required by the instant claims such that the at least one oblique sipe opening into each axial side of each external cavity are symmetrically arranged with respect to the mean plot (M1) of the substantially longitudinal cut, as required by claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Belarbi does not teach the limitation of oblique sipes intersecting the contour at a connection point that is defined by a pair of walls that extend in different axial and/or circumferential directions. Belarbi teaches oblique sipes intersecting with the walls of the external cavity (Fig. 2), but does not specify where those sipes intersect with the cavity. However, Fujiwara teaches a similar tire where the sipes intersect with the corners of the external cavity (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 9, Para. [0021]) which as connection points meet the limitations of being defined by a pair of walls that extend in different axial and/or circumferential directions.
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