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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 8/4/2025 have been accepted. Claims 1 and 6 are amended. Claim 9 is newly canceled. Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some of the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 5/9/2025. See below for outstanding and newly made rejections. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 15 should recite “…and not extending in the particular direction”, because the particular direction was previously introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the limitation of claim 6 “…the central protrusion is formed in two unconnected portions that are separated from each other” is considered to be new matter. While the instant application does show and describe the central protrusion that may have two unconnected portions (see Fig 2c), this is an entirely separate embodiments from what is being described in claim 1 of which claim 6 depends. Claim 1 has a bent central portion and a side protrusion which is coupled to the central portion at either an upper portion or lower portion thereof (see Figs. 3b and 3c). The instant specification does not reasonably suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the central protrusions, as in Figs. 3b and 3c, may be disconnected from each other so as to form two entirely separate portions, while also having each central portion bent and contiguous/coupled with the side protrusions. Therefore, the limitation of claim 6 is considered to be new matter. Claim 7 is rejected for relying upon a rejected claim.
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 1-3 and 6-8 are 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 lines 14-15 recite “…the side protrusion formed to be contiguous with and coupled to the central protrusion at an angle and not extending in the particular direction”. It is not clear how the underlined limitation is to be achieved, as any protrusion which has any thickness in the tire radial direction (tire particular direction) would necessarily have an extending portion in such a direction. For example, in Applicant’s Fig. 2a to 2c and 3b-3c, the side protrusions “112” would necessarily be extending in a tire particular direction because these portions have a thickness in the particular direction. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter what is meant by “not extending in the particular direction”. Claims 2-3 and 6-8 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "…and wherein the ends of the central protrusion are coupled to:" in line 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is not clear what or where the “ends” of the central protrusion are considered to be. Claims 2-3 and 6-8 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. The claim will be examined such that the ends of the central protrusion are considered to be where the central protrusion connects to the side protrusions.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…and wherein the ends of the central protrusion are couple to: an upper portion of the side protrusion… or a lower portion of the side protrusion”. From this wording, the claim is requiring for two ends of the central protrusion to each be coupled to either a lower or upper portion of the same side protrusion, such that the central protrusion would be connected to the side protrusion in two locations to the same side protrusion. Only a singular side protrusion is introduced in claim 1, whereas multiple are required in dependent claim 3. This does not appear to be what is intended, from the figures and the Remarks filled 8/4/2025, as it appears in Figs. 3b and 3c that the ends of the central protrusion should each be coupled to a separated side protrusion. Therefore, the claim is indefinite as there is a large discrepancy between what is claimed and what is depicted in the application, such that it isn’t clear what the protections are sought by the claims. Claims 2-3 and 6-8 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. The claims will be examined as if each of the ends of the central protrusion are coupled to separate side protrusions.
Claim 1 final 2 lines recites “…wherein the protrusion portion is formed by a coupling or group of a plurality of protrusions”. However, earlier in the claim, the one or more protrusions are cited to have a central protrusion coupled to the side protrusion, such that it is not clear what the “formed by a coupling” is referring to in the last 2 lines of the claim. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter.
Claim 8 recites “…the central protrusion and the plurality of side protrusions have a quadrangular cross-section”. The shape of the central protrusions are stated as having a quadrangular cross section in Figures 3a-3c [see pg. 10-11 of originally filed specification]. However, it is not clear how this shape is a quadrangle, as the central protrusion “111” in Fig. 3a (and where similar shapes of the central protrusion in Figs. 3b-3c are present) clearly has 6 sides. Therefore, it isn’t clear what Applicant is considering to be “quadrangular” as the conventional definition of 4-sided shape does not appear accurate, and as such the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be readily determined. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. The claims will be examined broadly such that the shape of the central portion needs to have a bent portion.
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 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steenwyk (US2015/0328935A1, of record) and in view of Kaji (US2016/0159161A, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Steenwyk teaches a tire (Fig. 1), having a block (various tread blocks shown in Figs. 2-4 of the tread), with an interlocking band type 3D kerf (Fig. 4a provides a view through a plane parallel to the sipe length-depth plane, and Fig. 4b shows a view of the sipe through a plane parallel to the sipe width-depth plane. This sipe “410-1210”, as in Figs. 4-12, is considered the 3D kerf),
a kerf having a road holding part which is a space formed in the block by extending in a particular direction inward to the tire from a ground contact surface of the block that comes into contact with a road (the radially outermost part of the sipe (the top of Figs. 4-12) is considered the road holding part),
a projection part which is a space in the block with both sidewall surfaces that is formed by extending from the road holding part and at which a protrusion portion having a shape projection from one sidewall is formed (the projection 450 to 1250 (as in Figs. 4-12) projects from a sidewall [see Fig. 4b]. A variety of different projection types may be utilized, as in Figs. 4-12. The projection part is considered the axial part including each protrusion and the associated gap moving axially from the protrusion),
a base part which is a space in the block that is formed by extending from the projection part and into which at least one of the central protrusion or the side protrusion does not extend (the base part may be considered to be the portion that is located radially below the projection parts, wherein each of the possible embodiments of Steenwyk clearly have a base portion wherein the central/side protrusions are not formed [see Figs. 6-7].
Steenwyk discloses a variety of possible protrusion portions, including Figs. 6 and 7 where the protrusion is formed as a long extending rectangle (quadrangular shape). Steenwyk does not explicitly discloses a central portion having a bent portion and side protrusions which are contiguous and coupled to the bent central portion. Steenwyk specifically states that the rectangular character of the cross-section of the projections is not limiting and other elongated shapes may be equally acceptable [0035]. It is well known in the art to have protrusions on sidewalls/grooves to have bent portions in order to enhance driving performance, rigidity, etc. Kaji, for example, teaches a tire with grooves “13” and blocks “14”, where projecting ridges “20” are formed on the sidewalls of the groove/block [see Fig. 3]. The projecting ridges are akin to the protrusions of Steenwyk, as they extend outward from a groove wall towards an adjacent groove wall [see Fig. 3]. The projecting ridges have portions radially above/below the ridge where no projection is present [see Fig. 5]. The ridges may be situated so as to be in a zigzag pattern with multiple bent portions [see Fig. 17, 0065].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the protrusions of Steenwyk so as to have a zigzag shape as suggested by Kaji. One would have been motivated in order to prevent non-uniform wear of the block and prevention of lowering of drainage performance [0054-0055, 0080-0083, Table 1]. Case law holds that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143. In this case, both Steenwyk and Kaji are tied to grooves/blocks with inclined protrusions extending from said groove/block, with shared interest in drainage, wear, etc. The simple substitution of the zigzag/bent protrusion for the rectangular protrusion of Steenwyk would have been obvious, and it would have led to the predictable results of improved drainage, wear resistance, etc. as an alternative arrangement of the projections of Steenwyk.
An annotated Fig. 17 from Kaji is included below to facilitate discussion. When the protrusions of Figs. 6 or 7 of Steenwyk have the zigzag shape with multiple bend portions as suggested by Kaji, the overall shape of the protrusion would be similar to what is shown below from annotated Fig. 17 of Kaji (i.e., a rectangle with bend portions forming an overall zigzag shape), with the potential difference being that the overall protrusion would be angled as shown in Fig. 6 of Steenwyk. The delineations between the side and central protrusions may be defined in a number of ways which satisfy the claim language, with two possibilities shown below. The central protrusion may be defined by the vertical dotted lines shown below, with the side protrusions located on either side of this. The central protrusion would encompass at least one of the bent portions as shown below. The two side protrusions may be considered to be in a “quadrangular column shape”, wherein it is noted that a “column” may take on a variety of different sizes and shapes. For example, a column may be tall, wide, angled, uneven, etc. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, a “quadrangular column shape” is taken broadly to mean any of these various possible sizes and shapes, as the claim does not explicitly require a specific shape to the column and the specification does not provide a special definition to this term. In this case, the side protrusions are a four-sided shape which is angled, such that they may reasonably be considered to be angled columns. And further as shown below, the side protrusions are clearly formed to be contiguous and coupled with the central protrusions thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
602
763
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And as to the side protrusions being “at an angle and not extending in a particular direction”, modified Steenwyk further makes obvious these limitations. It being noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “at an angle”, as it is not specifically stated what the angle is in reference to, that the side protrusion may be considered angled with reference to the tire width direction (such as left/right in the figures above) or angled with respect to the central protrusion. The side protrusions would clearly be angled with respect to the width direction as above, as their extent is angled. The side protrusions would also be angled with respect to the central protrusion, at least because “at an angle” includes embodiments where the angle is at 0deg (as 0deg is mathematically recognized to be an angle). Additionally, the side protrusions would be considered angled with respect to the central protrusion at angles other than 0deg, as the central protrusion has a bent portion such that the central protrusion would extend at an opposite angle as that of the side protrusion for at least a portion of its extent. And additionally, as the side protrusions shown above do not solely extend in a tire particular direction (defined previously to be a radial direction, up/down in the figures which extends inward from the ground contact surface), it would be considered that the side portions do not extend in the particular direction.
And as to the ends of the central protrusion, these would clearly each be coupled to a respective side protrusion at the location of the vertical dotted line (where the ends of the central protrusion are defined as the leftmost and rightmost ends of the central protrusion in the figures above). And as the central protrusion connects to the side protrusions at either the upper most or lower most portion of the side protrusion, the claim will necessarily be satisfied. In the two figures above for example, the left side protrusion connects with the central protrusion as the lowermost portion of the side protrusion, while the right side protrusion connects to the central protrusion at the uppermost portion of the central protrusion. In other words, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, it is merely required that the ends of the central protrusion are connected to an uppermost or lowermost portion of the side protrusion, such that modified Steenwyk clearly would satisfy the limitation.
Regarding claim 2, modified Steenwyk makes obvious a tire wherein the central protrusion is formed at a central region (as in annotated figures above, the central protrusion is defined so as to be in a central region of the projection with side protrusions located on both side directions of the central protrusion).
Regarding claim 3, modified Steenwyk makes obvious a tire wherein the side protrusion is one of a plurality of side protrusions which are protrusions on both sides of the central protrusion (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, the two ends of the protrusion may be considered to be the two side protrusions).
Regarding claim 6, modified Steenwyk makes obvious a tire wherein the central proturison is formed in two unconnected portions that are separated from each other (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, the central protrusion may be formed in the middle of the extending protrusion portion. And as Steenwyk shows in Fig. 20 for example, the projections may be arranged so as to be arranged at intervals in the left/right direction [0066]. In this way, Steenwyk directly suggests having the protrusions formed so as to be separated from each other, and so as to have a repeated pattern in the left/right direction. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrange the central protrusions so as to be unconnected and separated from each other [0066]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Steenwyk makes obvious a tire wherein the central protrusion is formed in plurality (the central protrusion, as defined in the rejection of claim 1 above, may be divided in any number of ways so as to form multiple central protrusions. One possible configuration is shown below, wherein there would be two central portions which each have bent portions, and two side protrusions located to the axial outside of the central protrusions. And additionally, as stated in the rejection of claim 6 above, Steenwyk directly suggests having the protrusions formed so as to be unconnected, such that it would have been obvious to arrange them as such).
PNG
media_image3.png
451
763
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, modified Steenwyk makes obvious a tire wherein in a cross section perpendicular to a length direction of the kerf, the central protrusion and the side protrusions have a quadrangular cross section (as in Fig. 6-7 of Steenwyk for example, each of protrusions are formed in a quadrangular shape, and as in the rejection of claim 1 above, the protrusions as defined would similarly meet the claim language. It is noted that quadrangular does not require straight edges on the 4 sides of each shape, see Applicant’s Figs. 2-4 where each shape shown is defined as quadrangular despite having curved edges).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the 112(b) rejection of claim 8 is improper because the claimed “quadrangular cross section” would have a cross section with four sides, and additional sides at the shape’s ends, such that the claim is sufficiently defined.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claim does define the central protrusion to be in a quadrangular cross section, it is not clear how this is to be accomplished when the central protrusion has the required bent portion. However, it is not clear how this shape is a quadrangle, as the central protrusion “111” in Fig. 3a (and where similar shapes of the central protrusion in Figs. 3b-3c are present) clearly has 6 sides. Applicant argues that this is clear when considered to be the cross-section, but the cross-section would still necessarily have the same 6 sides of the protrusion because of the bent portion in the central protrusion. Therefore, it isn’t clear how the four sided quadrangular is to be accomplished when the central protrusion would need to have at least 6 sides, and as such the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be readily determined.
Applicant argues on pgs. 6-11 of their remarks filed 8/4/2025 that the newly added limitations overcome the rejections of Steenwyk in view of Kaji.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that there are various 112 issues with the newly added limitations, see above for details. As for the limitations added to claim 1, the limitation “…the side protrusion formed to be contiguous with and coupled to the central protrusion at an angle and not extending in a particular direction” is made obvious by modified Steenwyk. It being noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “at an angle”, as it is not specifically stated what the angle is in reference to, that the side protrusion may be considered angled with reference to the tire width direction (such as left/right in the figures) or angled with respect to the central protrusion. The side protrusions would clearly be angled with respect to the width direction, as their extent is angled. The side protrusions would also be angled with respect to the central protrusion, at least because “at an angle” includes embodiments where the angle is at 0deg (as 0deg is mathematically recognized to be an angle). Additionally, the side protrusions would be considered angled with respect to the central protrusion at angles other than 0deg, as the central protrusion has a bent portion such that the central protrusion would extend at an opposite angle as that of the side protrusion for at least a portion of its extent. And additionally, as the side protrusions shown below do not solely extend in a tire particular direction (defined previously to be a radial direction, up/down in the figures which extends inward from the ground contact surface), it would be considered that the side portions do not extend in the particular direction.
And as to the added limitations regarding the ends of the central protrusion being coupled to an upper portion or a lower portion, this is further made obvious by the combination. The ends of the central portion would clearly each be coupled to a respective side protrusion at the location of the vertical dotted line in the figures below (where the ends of the central protrusion are defined as the leftmost and rightmost ends of the central protrusion in the figures below). And as the central protrusion connects to the side protrusions at either the upper most or lower most portion of the side protrusion, the claim will necessarily be satisfied. In the two figures below for example, the left side protrusion connects with the central protrusion as the lowermost portion of the side protrusion, while the right side protrusion connects to the central protrusion at the uppermost portion of the central protrusion. In other words, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, it is merely required that the ends of the central protrusion are connected to an uppermost or lowermost portion of the side protrusion. If Applicant wishes to argue further limitations of instant Fig. 3 regarding the placement of the ends of the central protrusion compared to the side protrusions, the Examiner notes that such limitations are not present within the claims at this instance. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
602
763
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that the cited combination of Steenwyk in view of Kaji is improper and that there is not a clear articulation for the reasons that this would have been obvious.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection specifically lists the rationale of preventing non-uniform wear of the block and prevention of lowering of drainage performance [Kaji, 0054-0055, 0080-0083, Table 1] for rationale of modifying Steenwyk. And the stated obviousness of the simple substitution is made light of these suggestions from Kaji (prevention of wear, lowering of drainage). Applicant has not considered the rejection as a whole when arguing against the supposed nonobviousness of the references used together. Furthermore, applicant has failed to account for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner notes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle,” KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). The rejections, as above, clearly articulate the suggested modification and has specific rationale as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would make such a modification, such that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
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 THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781