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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 67-91 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/10/2025.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 11/10/2025. Claims 34-53 and 64-66 are pending for examination. Claims 67-91 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 34-37, 46, 48, 50, 53, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2014/0130952 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Tanaka teaches a car tire (Para. [0039]) with a tread having a central region (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4, 6L, 6R) extending across an equatorial plane (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. C), two shoulder regions (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5L, 5R), a first circumferential groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 3, left side), and a second circumferential groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 3, right side). As both central ribs have a width of 13% to 20% of the tread width (Para. [0049]), there are embodiments where the width of the central region is greater than or equal to 35% of the tread width which is a prima facie case of obviousness. Both shoulder regions comprise a plurality of first transverse grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10L, 10R) having a first end at the tread edge and first sipes (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 19) arranged adjacently to the first transverse groove so that combined, they extend for 100% of the width of the shoulder regions and that the first transverse grooves have an extension longer than the first sipes. The first transverse grooves have a width of 2-8 mm (Para. [0071]), which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 4 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
The central region comprises a first and second circumferential rib (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 6L, 6R) separated by a third circumferential groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4) where both ribs comprise second transverse grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20L, 20R) and second sipes adjacent to the grooves (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 28) where combined they extend for 100% of the width of the circumferential ribs and the grooves have an extension longer than the sipes. The second transverse grooves have a width of 2-8 mm (Para. [0107]), which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 2 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness. Finally, Tanaka teaches at least one additional plurality of sipes (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 19; Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 21).
Regarding claim 35, Tanaka teaches that both shoulder areas comprise a plurality of the first sipes (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 19).
Regarding claim 36, Tanaka teaches that the overall extension of the first transverse grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10L, 10R) and the first sipes (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 19) is 100% of the width of the shoulder area.
Regarding claim 37, Tanaka teaches that the overall extension of the second transverse grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20L, 20R) and the second sipes (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 28) is 100% of the width of the circumferential rib.
Regarding claim 46, Tanaka teaches a plurality of fifth sipes (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 19) located in the shoulder regions that have an extension of at least 50% of the shoulder width (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 19) which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 60%.
Regarding claim 48, Tanaka teaches that some of the fifth sipes have ends spaced away from the circumferential groove (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 19).
Regarding claim 50, Tanaka teaches that the first and second circumferential ribs have no grooves of sipes with a substantially circumferential course (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 6l, 6R).
Regarding claim 53, Tanaka teaches that the second sipes (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 28) are closer to the equatorial plane than the second transverse grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20L, 20R).
Regarding claim 64, Tanaka teaches that the second transverse grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20L, 20R) have a curvilinear course.
Claims 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2014/0130952 A1) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Mukai et al. (US 2017/0368882 A1).
Regarding claim 38, Tanaka teaches a plurality of third sipes (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 21) that are present in both circumferential ribs and teaches that the sipes have one end point at a circumferential groove (Para. [0117]) and the other end point located axially outside of the second transverse groove (Para. [0119]), but does not teach that the sipes extend at least 60% of the rib width.
In an analogous art, Mukai teaches a tire with sipes (Fig. 4, Ref. Num. 36) in between one end closed transverse grooves (Fig. 4, Ref. Num. 34) that extend all the way across the rib.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tanaka with Mukai to extend the third sipe to connect to both circumferential grooves. This modification will improve on-ice performance (Mukai; Para. [0063]). This will give the third sipes an extension length of 100%.
Regarding claim 39, modified Tanaka teaches that the plurality of third sipes (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 21) have an extension of 100% of the rib width (Mukai; Para. [0063]).
Regarding claim 40, modified Tanaka teaches that the third sipes (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 21) are interposed between the second transverse grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20L, 20R).
Regarding claim 41, Nagahara teaches that the third sipes (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 21) are mutually spaced away and have not points of intersection with the second transverse grooves.
Claims 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2014/0130952 A1) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Ishizaka (JP 2008-307935 – of Record).
Regarding claim 42, modified Tanaka does not teach fourth sipes having a smaller extension than the third sipes.
In an analogous art, Ishizaka teaches a tire with blind sipes (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 91) that are located adjacent to the circumferential grooves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Tanaka with Ishizaka in order to add blind sipes to the ribs of the central region. This modification will improve uneven wear (Ishizaka; Para. [0051]). As the fourth sipes terminate in the land portion, they have a shorter extension length than the third sipes (Tanaka; Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 21).
Regarding claim 43, since the fourth sipes also extend in the transverse direction (Ishizaka; Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 91), they will not intersect with the third sipes or second transverse grooves.
Regarding claim 44, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the fourth sipes (Ishizaka; Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 91) have an extension length of less than 60% of the rib width as the figure 1 clearly shows them as significantly shorter than 50% of the rib width.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2014/0130952 A1) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Washizu (US 2022/0235209 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 45, modified Tanaka does not teach the void ratio of the tire.
In an analogous art, Washizu teaches a tire (Para. [0169}) that has a land ratio of 30% or higher (Para. [0183]), which would be a void ratio of 70% or lower, which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 24% which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Tanaka with Washizu in order to have a land ratio of 30% or higher. This modification will improve wet and dry grip performance (Washizu; Para. [0183]).
Claim 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2014/0130952 A1) as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of Iida (US 2020/0361245 A1).
Regarding claim 47, Tanaka does not teach that some of the fifth sipes connect to the circumferential grooves.
In an analogous art, Iida teaches adding sipes to the shoulder areas (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 74) that connect to the circumferential groove.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tanaka with Iida to add additional fifth sipes that connect to the circumferential groove. This modification will improve wet steering ability (Iida; Para. [0046]).
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2014/0130952 A1) and Iida (US 2020/0231245) as applied to claim 46 and 47 above, and further in view of Uotani et al. (US 2022/0126630 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 49, modified Tanaka does not teach that the fifth sipes are connected to one another.
In an analogous art, Uotani teaches a tire with circumferential sipes (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 7) connecting lateral sipes in the shoulder area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Tanaka with Uotani in order to connect the lateral sipes with circumferential sipes. This modification will improve resistance to overturning (Uotani; Para. [0038]).
Claims 51, 52, 65 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2014/0130952 A1) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Nagahara et al. (US 2016/0082780 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 51, Tanaka does not teach the extension length of the first sipes and transverse grooves.
In an analogous art, Nagahara teaches first transverse grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 14) that have an extension of 70% to 90% (Para. [0052]) of the shoulder width, which means that the first sipes (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 12) have an extension of 10% to 30% of the shoulder width which is within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tanaka to have a first transverse groove extension length of 70% to 90% of the shoulder width. This modification will increase snow shearing (Nagahara; Para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 52, Tanaka does not teach the extension length of the second sipes and transverse grooves.
In an analogous art, Nagahara teaches second transverse grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 18) that have an extension of 50% to 90% (Para. [0066]) of the rib width, which means that the second sipes (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 22) have an extension of 10% to 50% of the rib width which is within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tanaka to have a second transverse groove extension length of 50% to 90% of the rib width. This modification will increase snow shearing (Nagahara; Para. [0066]).
Regarding claim 65, Tanaka does not teach the depth of the transverse grooves or sipes.
In an analogous art, Nagahara teaches that the first sipes (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 12) have a depth of 25% to 80% of the circumferential groove depth and the first transverse grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 14) have a depth of 50% to 80% of the circumferential groove depth (Para. [0056]), which means that there is a combination of ranges where the first sipes have a smaller depth than the first transverse grooves which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tanaka to have this sipe and groove depth relationship. This modification will increase snow shearing (Nagahara; Para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 66, modified Tanaka teaches that the first transverse grooves (Nagahara; Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 14) have a depth of 50% to 80% of the circumferential groove depth (Para. [0056]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 34 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.
Conclusion
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.
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