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) 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.
2) The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3) 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.
Swiss 107
4) Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swiss 107 (CH 331107).
Swiss 107 discloses a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising land portions 3 separated by circumferential grooves 2 [FIGURES 1, 3, machine translation]. Land portions comprise incisions 4a [FIGURE 3]. An annotated copy of FIGURE 3 of Swiss 107 is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
390
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MARKED UP FIGURE #1
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE #1, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Swiss 107. In MARKED UP FIGURE #1:
“A” is an incision having a first end “X” and a second end “Y”, and
“B” is an incision having a first end “X” and a second end “Y”.
As can be seen from MARKED UP FIGURE #1, incisions A and B have a linear trace, incisions A and B completely traverse the respective land portion, incisions A (marked with thick black line) are provided in one land portion and incisions B (marked with thick black line) are provided in adjacent land portion separated from the one land portion via one circumferential groove. As can also be seen from MARKED UP FIGURE #1, first end X of incision A is located at a same position in the tire circumferential direction as the second end Y of incision B. Swiss 107 teaches that the incisions are closed when the profile is not under stress [machine translation]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the incisions are sipes having a width equal to or less than 2 mm.
As to claims 1-2 and 6, the claimed tire is anticipated by Swiss 107’s pneumatic tire. The claimed lateral groove-shaped elements read on the incisions A and B. Claim 1 reads on and fails to exclude other lateral groove-shaped elements.
5) Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swiss 107 (CH 331107) in view of Europe 685 (EP 688,685) or Miyazaki (US 2021/0268836).
As to claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Swiss 107’s pneumatic tire such that the incisions (lateral groove-shaped elements) include grooves each having a width greater than 2 mm since (1) Swiss 107 teaches forming incisions in the land portions of the tread of the pneumatic tire; one of ordinary skill in the art readily appreciating that these incisions are sipes and (2) (A) Europe 685 teaches using sipes having a width of 1 to 3 mm in a tread of a pneumatic passenger tire [page 5 lines 51-52] or (B) Miyazaki teaches using sipes having width of 0.1 to 3 mm in a tread of a pneumatic passenger tire [paragraph 23].
6) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swiss 107 (CH 331107) in view of Japan 901 (JP 61-202901) or Japan 702 (JP 60-148702).
As to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Swiss 107’s pneumatic tire such that in a ground contact patch of the tire under a normal loaded state in which the tire is mounted on a standard wheel rim with a standard pressure and is in contact with a flat surface with a zero camber angles under a standard tire load, a tire circumferential length of an edge of the ground contact patch that crosses one of the land portions that is provided with some of the lateral groove-shaped elements forming the first array is equal to or less than 20% of a tire circumferential length of one of the plurality of lateral groove-shaped elements formed on the one of the land portions since (1) Swiss 107 shows inclining sipes A, B at an acute angle (about 50 degrees) with respect to the circumferential direction [FIGURE 3] and (2) (A) Japan 901 teaches providing a pneumatic passenger tire such that the footprint demonstrates a ratio l/L = 0.85 to 0.96 to reduce rolling resistance [FIGURE 3, machine translation] or (B) Japan 702 teaches providing a pneumatic passenger tire such that the footprint demonstrates a ratio F/G = 0.85 to 1.1 to improve steering stability and avoid shoulder wear [FIGURE 7, machine translation]. The combination of Swiss 107’s teaching to incline the sipes at an acute angle with respect to the circumferential direction and the teaching in Japan 901 or Japan 702 to use a ratio for the footprint causing the leading and trailing edges of the footprint to be only slightly curved (generally straight) render obvious the claimed distance of less than or equal to 20%.
Japan 204
7) Claims 1-4, 6 and 17-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japan 204 (JP 62-255204).
Japan 204 discloses a pneumatic tire (heavy load size 11R22) having a tread comprising land portions each comprising linear sipes 17 [FIGURES 1-3, machine translation]. The linear sipes are inclined at an angle of 30 to 60 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction [FIGURE 1, machine translation]. The sipes have a preferred width W = 0.1 to 1.0 mm [machine translation]. It is noted that Japan 204 tested a non-preferred width of 2.5 mm [FIGURE 6, machine translation]. As to pitch P of the sipes, Japan 204 teaches: width W (sipe) = 0.05 x pitch P (sipe) - Z where Z = 0 to 0.6 mm [machine translation]. FIGURE 1 of Japan 204 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
314
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
An annotated portion of FIGURE 1 of Japan 204 is provided below:
PNG
media_image3.png
414
630
media_image3.png
Greyscale
MARKED UP FIGURE #2
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE #2, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Japan 204. In MARKED UP FIGURE #2:
“L” is an axial line,
“A” is a sipe having a first end “X” and a second end “Y”,
“B” is a sipe having a first end “X” and a second end “Y”.
As can be seen from MARKED UP FIGURE #1, sipes A and B have a linear trace, sipes A and B are inclined in the same direction with respect to the circumferential direction, sipes A and B completely traverse the respective land portion, sipes A (marked with thick black line) are provided in one land portion (narrow middle rib) and sipes B (marked with thick black line) are provided in adjacent land portion (shoulder rib) separated from the one land portion via one circumferential groove 13. As can also be seen from MARKED UP FIGURE #1, first end X of sipe A is located at a same position in the tire circumferential direction as the second end Y of sipe B. 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). Japan 204 teaches that the tire has reduced wear [machine translation].
As to claim 1, the claimed tire is anticipated by Japan 204’s tire having the FIGURE 1 tread pattern. The claimed lateral groove-shaped elements read on the sipes 17.
As to claim 2, Japan 204 teaches providing the sipes with a preferred width of 0.1 to 1.0 mm.
As to claim 3, Japan 204 tested a non-preferred width of 2.5 mm [FIGURE 6].
As to claim 4, the sipes in the narrow middle rib and the sipes in the shoulder rib separated by a shoulder circumferential groove 13 are inclined in the same direction.
As to claim 6, the sipes completely traverse the respective rib.
As to claim 17, the narrow middle rib and the shoulder rib are provided with only the sipes (lateral groove shaped elements).
As to claims 18-28, see comments for claims 2-4 and 6.
8) Claims 1-4, 6 and 17-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 204 (JP 62-255204) and optionally Durand-Gasselin et al (US 2018/0134089).
Japan 204, discussed above, is considered to anticipate claim 1. IN ANY EVENT: As to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 204’s pneumatic tire such that:
the tire comprises a tread portion provided with circumferential grooves extending continuously in a tire circumferential direction and comprising land portions divided by circumferential grooves, wherein the land portions are provided with a set of linear lateral groove-shaped elements inclined with respect to a tire axial direction and the tire circumferential direction, each of the lateral groove-shaped elements has a first end located on a first side in the tire circumferential direction and a second end located on a second side in the tire circumferential direction, the set of the lateral groove-shaped elements is arranged in a first array over an entire circumference of the tire, the first array is such that in each of all pairs of two lateral groove-shaped elements adjacent to each other in the tire circumferential direction of the lateral groove-shaped elements, the first end of one of the two lateral groove-shaped elements is located at a same position in the tire circumferential direction as the second end of the other one of the two lateral groove-shaped elements, and the two lateral groove-shaped elements included in each of the all pairs are respectively formed on two of the land portions adjacent to each other via one of the circumferential grooves
since (1) Japan 204 discloses a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising ribs (narrow middle ribs and shoulder ribs) delimited by narrow circumferential grooves and wide circumferential grooves 13, (2) Japan 204 teaches arranging sipes 17 in a middle narrow rib and an adjacent shoulder rib such that the sipes are spaced at a pitch P and are inclined at an angle of 30-60 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction [FIGURES 1-3, machine translation] wherein FIGURE 1 illustrates the sipes 17 in the narrow middle rib having ends opening to a shoulder circumferential groove 13 and facing ends of sipes 17 in the shoulder rib opening to the shoulder circumferential groove 13; first end X of sipe A being located at a same position in the tire circumferential direction as the second end Y of sipe B [MARKED UP FIGURE #2] and optionally (3) (A) Durand-Gasselin et al teaches arranging cutouts (sipes or grooves) in a shoulder region such that when a cutout reaches one of its ends, another cutout starts out at the same circumferential level in the shoulder region to limit the variation in the void ratio in the shoulder region in the circumferential direction and thereby improve acoustic performance of the tire and (B) Durand-Gasselin et al illustrates a leading end of one inclined cutout in one shoulder being located at a same position in the tire circumferential direction as a trailing end of another inclined cutout in another shoulder land portion [e.g. FIGURE 5].
With respect to optional Durand-Gasselin et al, an annotated copy of FIGURE 5 of Durand-Gasselin et al is provided below:
PNG
media_image4.png
594
596
media_image4.png
Greyscale
MARKED UP FIGURE #3
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE #3, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Durand-Gasselin et al. In MARKED UP FIGURE #3:
“L” is an axial line,
“A” is a sipe having a first end “X” and a second end “Y”,
“B” is a sipe having a first end “X” and a second end “Y”,
“C” is a sipe having a first end “Q” and a second end “R”,
“D” is a sipe having a first end “Q” and a second end “R”,
and sipes A, B, C and D are marked with thick black lines.
As can be seen from MARKED UP FIGURE #3, first end X of sipe A is located at a same position in the tire circumferential direction as the second end Y of sipe B.
Applicant’s specification contains an explicit definition for “same position”,
which allows for a displacement of the two ends of the sipes by a small distance in the circumferential direction. Paragraph 29 on page 9 of specification states: “’same position’ includes a mode in which the two ends are displaced by a small distance in the tire circumferential direction so that manufacturing errors can be tolerated. In this case, the distance is equal to or less than 5%, preferably equal to or less than 3%, more preferably equal to or less than 1%, of the sum (L1+L2) of a length L1 in the tire circumferential direction of the centerline 7C of one first lateral groove-shaped element 7 and a length L2 in the tire circumferential direction of the centerline 8C of one second lateral groove-shaped element 8”. Thus, the applied prior art to Japan 204 and optional Durand-Gasselin et al render obvious “the first end of one of the two lateral groove-shaped elements is located at a same position in the tire circumferential direction as the second end of the other one of the two lateral groove-shaped elements” [claim 1, emphasis added] wherein “same position” is interpreted using applicant’s explicit definition in paragraph 29 of specification.
As to claim 2, Japan 204 teaches providing the sipes with a preferred width of
0.1 to 1.0 mm.
As to claim 3, Japan 204 tested a non-preferred width of 2.5 mm [FIGURE 6].
As to claim 4, the sipes in the narrow middle rib and the sipes in the shoulder rib separated by a shoulder circumferential groove 13 are inclined in the same direction.
As to claim 6, the sipes completely traverse the respective rib.
As to claim 17, the narrow middle rib and the shoulder rib are provided with only the sipes (lateral groove shaped elements).
As to claims 18-28, see comments for claims 2-4 and 6.
9) Claims 3, 19, 22, 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 204 (JP 62-255204) and optionally Durand-Gasselin et al (US 2018/0134089) as applied above and further in view of Takahashi (US 2014/0158261) or Kleinhoff et al (US 2002/0053383).
Japan 204 is considered to anticipate claim 3. IN ANY EVENT: As to claims 3, 19, 22, 25 and 28, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 204’s pneumatic heavy load tire such that the sipes (narrow grooves) each have a width greater than 2 mm since (1) Takahashi teaches using sipes having
a width of 0.5 mm to 3.0 mm in a tread of a pneumatic tire (e.g. heavy load size 11R22.5) [paragraphs 25, 45, 57] or (2) Kleinhoff et al teaches using sipes having a width of 1.6 mm to 4.0 mm in a tread of a heavy truck tire [paragraph 11]. It is acknowledged that Japan 204 prefers to use a width of 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm for the sipes. However, “... our case law does not require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation for the current invention.” In re Fulton, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
10) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 204 (JP 62-255204) and optionally Durand-Gasselin et al (US 2018/0134089) as applied above and further in view of Japan 901 (JP 61-202901) or Japan 702 (JP 60-148702).
As to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 204’s pneumatic tire such that in a ground contact patch of the tire under a normal loaded state in which the tire is mounted on a standard wheel rim with a standard pressure and is in contact with a flat surface with a zero camber angles under a standard tire load, a tire circumferential length of an edge of the ground contact patch that crosses one of the land portions that is provided with some of the lateral groove-shaped elements forming the first array is equal to or less than 20% of a tire circumferential length of one of the plurality of lateral groove-shaped elements formed on the one of the land portions since (1) Japan 204 teaches inclining sipes at an angle of 30 to 60 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction [FIGURE 1, machine translation] and (2) (A) Japan 901 teaches providing a pneumatic passenger tire such that the footprint demonstrates a ratio l/L = 0.85 to 0.96 to reduce rolling resistance [FIGURE 3, machine translation] or (B) Japan 702 teaches providing a pneumatic passenger tire such that the footprint demonstrates a ratio F/G = 0.85 to 1.1 to improve steering stability and avoid shoulder wear [FIGURE 7, machine translation]. The combination of Japan 204’s teaching to incline the sipes at an angle of 30 to 60 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction and the teaching in Japan 901 or Japan 702 to use a ratio for the footprint causing the leading and trailing edges of the footprint to be only slightly curved (generally straight) render obvious the claimed distance of less than or equal to 20%.
Remarks
11) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6, 9 and 17-28 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
With respect to applicant maintaining a traversal of the Election of Species Requirement for the reasons stated in the Response filed April 22, 2025, see examiner’s response to applicant’s traversal in paragraph 7 of the last Office Action dated 7-30-25.
12) No claim is allowed.
13) Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
14) 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 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
February 13, 2026