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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 1/2/2026. Claims 42 and 45-62 are pending for examination. Claims 63-82 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 42, 50, 54-57, 59, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebiko (US 2009/0255614 A1 – of Record) in view of Mukai (US 2013/0112325 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Ebiko teaches a pneumatic tire (Para. [0019]) with a plurality of circumferential main grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4-6) that have a zigzag shaped (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 14) so that the groove center line is displaced in the width direction. However, Ebiko does not teach an inner chamfered portion.
In an analogous art, Mukai teaches a tire where all the main grooves are chamfered on both sides (Fig. 1; Fig. 2, Ref. Num. θ5a-d, θ6a-d) where each chamfer has a constant width.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ebiko with Mukai in order to add a chamfered portion to the inside of the circumferential main groove. This modification will improve steering ability (Mukai; Para. [0050]). Modified Ebiko shows that for one circumferential groove (Mukai; Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 3), the chamfer towards the outside of the tire (away from center line) has a larger width than the chamfer towards the inside of the tire. Mukai teaches that the circumferential groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 3) is on the outboard side of the tire; however, the mounting direction is intended use and since the tire can be mounted in either direction, the left side of the tire can be defined as the inboard side of the tire. This would make it so the inner chamfered portion has a wider width than the outer chamfered portion.
Regarding claim 50, Ebiko teaches first inclined grooves (Recreated Fig. 1 below) that extend from the innermost side of the innermost circumferential groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num 4) and terminate in land portion to the outside of that groove and they also extend from the outermost side of the innermost circumferential groove and terminate in the land portion on the inside of the circumferential groove. Ebiko also teaches second inclined grooves (Recreated Fig. 1 below) that extend from the outer side of the outermost circumferential groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 6) and terminate in the land area outside of the outermost groove. Finally, Ebiko teaches third inclined grooves (Recreated Fig. 1 below) where both ends terminate in the land portion inside of the innermost circumferential groove and fourth inclined grooves (Recreated Fig. 1 below) where both ends terminate in the land portion outside of the outermost circumferential groove.
PNG
media_image1.png
395
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 54, Ebiko teaches that the orientation of the second and fourth inclined grooves are the same (Recreated Fig. 1 above) and that the orientation angle of the first and third inclined grooves (Recreated Fig. 1 above) are different from each other.
Regarding claim 55, Ebiko teaches that both ends of a third inclined groove (Recreated Fig. 1 above) are between adjacent first inclined grooves.
Regarding claim 56, Ebiko teaches that all of the first grooves communicate with innermost portion of the zigzags in the wall (Recreated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 57, Ebiko teaches that all of the second grooves communicate with outermost portion of the zigzags in the wall (Recreated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 59, Ebiko does not explicitly teach the distance LG2G4 and the distance LG4G4; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the ratio between the two be between 0.40 and 0.60 as figure 1 clearly shows the second inclined groove being located halfway in between adjacent fourth inclined grooves.
Regarding claims 62, Ebiko teaches that the length of the first inclined groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 40) that extends towards the vehicle outer side is 7 mm (Para. [0087]) which is shorter than the length of the first inclined groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 48) that extends towards the vehicle inner side which is 10 mm (Para. [0090]).
Claims 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebiko (US 2009/0255614 A1) in view of Mukai (US 2013/0112325 A1) as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Nakano (US 2022/0185021 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 45, Ebiko does not teach that the inner half of the tire has a larger groove area than the outer half of the tire.
In an analogous art, Nakano teaches a tire where the circumferential grooves have an increasing width from the outside to the inside of the tire (Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Ebiko with Nakano in order to have the circumferential grooves increase in width from the outside of the tire to the inside of the tire. This modification will reduce the noise of the tire (Nakano; Para. [0027]). This will make it so the inner side of the tire has a larger groove area than the outside as the rest of the tire pattern is symmetrical.
Regarding claim 46, modified Ebiko teaches that the circumferential grooves have an increasing width from the outside to the inside of the tire (Nakano; Para. [0027]). This would mean that for every pair of two circumferential grooves adjacent to each other, the inner groove will have a larger average width than the outer groove.
Regarding claim 47, modified Ebiko teaches that the circumferential grooves have an increasing width from the outside to the inside of the tire (Nakano; Para. [0027]). This would mean that for every pair of two circumferential grooves adjacent to each other, the inner groove will have a larger average width than the outer groove.
Claims 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebiko (US 2009/0255614 A1) in view of Mukai (US 2013/0112325 A1) as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Document 1 (GB 1549347 A).
Regarding claim 48, modified Ebiko does not teach the height of the chamfer.
In an analogous art, Document 1 teaches chamfers that include on main grooves (Fig. 8, Ref. Num. 94, 96) where the depth of the chamfer 0.2 to 0.4 time the depth of the groove (Page 2, Lines 34-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Ebiko with Document 1 in order to have the chamfer have a depth of 0.2 to 0.4 times the groove depth. This modification will help reduce the edge wear (Document 1; Page 4, Lines 18-32).
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebiko (US 2009/0255614 A1) in view of Mukai (US 2013/0112325 A1) as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Okuno (US 2019/0001755 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 49, modified Ebiko does not teach the angle of the inner and outer groove wall.
In an analogous art, Okuno teaches a tire with wavy circumferential grooves (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 3) where the angle of the groove wall is larger on outside of the bend than on the inside of the bend (Para. [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Ebiko with Okuno in order to have the groove wall of the circumferential groove have a larger inclination angle on the outside of the bent portions than the inside. This modification will suppress uneven wear (Okuno; Para. [0040]). This will make it so that at a cross-sectional view of the tire, the outside wall of the circumferential groove will have a larger inclination angle than the inside wall.
Claims 51-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebiko (US 2009/0255614 A1) in view of Mukai (US 2013/0112325 A1) as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Naito (JP 2016-112926 – of Record).
Regarding claim 51, modified Ebiko does not teach fifth inclined grooves.
In an analogous art, Naito teaches a tire where the shoulder area has grooves that terminate in the land area (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 12) and alternate the direction they are inclined in.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Ebiko with Naito in order to add these fifth grooves in the shoulder areas. This modification will help improve grip on paved roads (Naito; Para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 52, Ebiko teaches that the third and fourth inclined grooves extend across the ground contact edges (See Recreated Fig. 1 above) and Naito teaches that the first inclined grooves terminate on the equatorial plane side of the tread edge (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 12).
Regarding claim 53, Ebiko teaches that the second, third, and fourth inclined grooves have the same orientation as the first inclined groove (See Recreated Fig. 1 above) and that since the fifth inclined grooves are orientated in two different directions (Naito; Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 12), some of them will be oriented different from the first inclined grooves.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebiko (US 2009/0255614 A1) in view of Mukai (US 2013/0112325 A1) as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Osawa et al. (US 2021/0146729 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 58, Ebiko does not teach the length of the first inclined groove on the outside of the inner most circumferential groove.
In an analogous art, Osawa teaches that blind grooves in the intermediate land area (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 12A) should have a length of 0.3 to 0.45 times the width of the land area (Para. [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Ebiko with Osawa in order to have the length of the first inclined groove be 0.3 to 0.45 times the width of the land area. This modification will improve the steering ability (Osawa; Para. [0092]).
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebiko (US 2009/0255614 A1) in view of Mukai (US 2013/0112325 A1) as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Takata (US 2019/0092100 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 60, does not teach the depth of any of the inclined grooves.
In an analogous art, Takata teaches a tire where the lateral grooves of the tire have a depth less than the depth of the circumferential grooves (Para. [0020]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 to 85% of the depth of the circumferential 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 Ebiko with Takata to have the inclined grooves have a groove depth of less than the circumferential grooves. This modification will help maintain durability (Takata; Para. [0020]).
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebiko (US 2009/0255614 A1) in view of Mukai (US 2013/0112325 A1) as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Nagase (US 2019/0308463 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 61, Ebiko does not teach the relationship 11 where the depth of the main groove is deeper than the first inclined groove when it connects to the main groove which is then deeper than the first inclined groove when it terminates in the land area.
In an analogous art, Nagase teaches a terminating, inclined groove (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 21) where the depth of the main groove (Fig. 3A, Ref. Num. D3) is deeper than the inclined groove at the connection point (Fig. 3A, Ref. Num. 40a) which is deeper than the termination of the inclined groove (Fig. 3A, Ref. Num. 21a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ebiko to form the first inclined groove with this depth relationship. This modification will help secure the rigidity of the land area (Nagase; Para. [0058]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to combine Mukai with Ebiko in order to have the wider chamfer on the inside of the tire. The chamfer arrangement Ebiko teaches has the wider chamfer on the outside of the tire to gain the benefits and it would not have been obvious to mount the tire so that the wider chamfer is on the outside of the tire. Mounting direction is intended use and the claims are towards a pneumatic tire not a mounting method for a pneumatic tire. It would have been obvious to add the chamfers of Ebiko to Mukai in order to gain the benefits of improved steering ability. However, that tire would still be structurally the same as the claimed tire and does not prevent the tire from being mounted in either direction.
Conclusion
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