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 12/01/2025 have been accepted. Claims 1 and 14 are amended. Claims 9 and 18 are canceled. Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(a) and 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 9/15/2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some of the 112(b) rejections previously set forth, see below for outstanding rejections.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 as amended specifies the definition of “dividing transverse cuts” as in the final paragraph of the first page of the claim and of the first paragraph of the second page of the claim. In order to enhance clarity of what is being referred to by the “dividing transverse cut”, 2nd page line 3 should be amended to read “…in that each dividing transverse cut in each intermediate row comprises a first transverse groove portion”, so as to better delineate between what are considered the dividing transverse cuts in the intermediate row and what are considered the non-dividing cuts.
Claim 1 2nd page final paragraph appears to have an inadvertent space between “through-“ and “sipe”. This should instead read “through-sipe”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-8 and 10-18 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 2nd page line 15 recites “…divided by a transverse sipe extending between the intermediate cuts having a first end…”. However, “intermediate cuts” was not preciously introduced and is lacking antecedent basis, such that it is not clear what intermediate cuts are being referred to. Specifically, there are previously introduced in the claim only 4 respective longitudinal cuts, including axially outer longitudinal cuts and inner longitudinal cuts. It is not clear what the relationship is between these various longitudinal cuts and the “intermediate cuts” as claimed. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. Claims 2-8 and 10-17 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. The claim will be examined such that the claim reads “…divided by a transverse sipe extending between the inner longitudinal cuts having a first end….
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spinnler (USD782403S, of record) in view of Takahashi (US2007/0151643A1, of record), in view of Adam (US5211781A, of record), in view of either Nakajima (JPH02133205A, of record) or Takahashi2 (US8439093B2, of record), and in view of at least one of Haga (US2014/0238568A1, of record), Hibino (JP2016159861A, of record), and/or Numata (US2016/0297254A1, of record), and in view of Tanaka (US2020/0001659A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Spinnler teaches a design for a tire with a tread [see Figs. 1-5, title] for a heavy-duty vehicle (it is noted that this is construed as intended use as no specific structural limitations are required, such that the tread/tire of Spinnler would clearly be able to be used with a heavy-duty vehicle. Additionally, it is noted that the tread of Spinnler and that of the instant application are substantially similar in design/tread pattern/assignee/inventor/etc., such that it would be reasonable to consider the tire of Spinnler a heavy-duty tire on account of the design of its tread pattern), that is intended to come into contact with the ground via a tread surface (this is also construed as intended use, however the tread surface as the outer surface of Fig. 1 would clearly come into contact with a ground during running as it is the radially outermost surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tread pattern of Spinnler in a tread of a pneumatic tire since it is well known / conventional per se in the tire art to use a tread pattern in a tread of a pneumatic tire to improve traction performance / braking performance. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to incorporate the tread of Spinnler into a pneumatic tire for the benefit of obtaining a real world / practical application of the design of Spinnler’s tread pattern.
Further regarding claim 1, the tire suggested by Spinnler suggests comprising blocks which are arranged in rows along a longitudinal direction and are delimited by cuts (the tread pattern as in Fig. 2 has 5 rows of tread blocks, where they are clearly delineated by grooves in the tread pattern. An annotated Fig. 2 is below detailing the different types of blocks/grooves),
The tread having a width (L), measured along a transverse direction between two lateral edges of the tread surface (the transverse direction is left/right in Fig. 2. The lateral edges of the tread surface are clearly present in Figs. 1 and 2, where there is a clear dark line between a tread surface and a sidewall/buttress region of the tire. The tread width is considered to be between this portion, as in Fig. 2), and a height (H), which is equal to the maximum depth of a cut measured along a direction perpendicular to the tread surface (the grooves in the tread pattern clearly have a depth as in Figs. 1-5),
The tread comprising five rows which are separated in pairs by a longitudinal cut and form a median row on a median plane, two intermediate rows which are symmetrical, and two lateral rows which are outermost and symmetrical to the median plane (an annotated Fig. 2 from Spinnler is included below to facilitate discussion. The 5 rows are clearly shown, with the median, intermediate, and lateral rows called out in the figure. The median plane is at an axial center of the tire tread, and this median row would clearly be within a median plane. The intermediate and lateral rows are clearly each point symmetric about the median plane. There are 4 total longitudinal cuts that divide these rows),
PNG
media_image1.png
477
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the blocks in the intermediate and lateral rows being completely separated at least partially by a dividing transverse cut (as in the annotated Fig. 2, there are clearly cuts that separate each of the rows into a series of blocks),
Wherein each dividing transverse cut in each lateral row in a transverse groove extending from a lateral edge of the tread surface to an outer longitudinal cut, each intermediate row has a first transverse groove portion and second transverse sipe portion, and each median row has a transverse sipe that is offset to the second transverse sipe (an annotated Fig. 2 of Spinnler is included below to facilitate discussion. In it, each of the respective groove/sipes of the rows are called out. The groove in the lateral row is clearly a “groove” as it is considerably wider than the other grooves, and it extends fully from a lateral edge to the outer longitudinal cut. The intermediate row clearly has a first groove portion with a wide width closest to the axial outside, which is connected to a thin width portion which may be considered the second sipe portion. And finally, the center row has thin grooves which may be considered sipes, which are clearly not in line with the second transverse sipe portions and are offset on opposite sides of the median plane).
PNG
media_image2.png
469
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Spinnler clearly contains two different types of grooves, as clear from the considerable width differences from the first transverse groove portion and the second transverse sipe portion in annotated Fig. 2 above. It is well known in the art that thin grooves are called sipes and that wide grooves are considered “grooves”. Additionally, it is noted that the tread pattern of Spinner is substantially similar to the tread pattern of the instant application (note similarities to groove sizes, tread pattern, inventor, assignee), wherein the instant application defines groove/sipe as in the same manner as in the Spinnler of the Design Patent. As such, it would be reasonable for a skilled artisan to consider the wide grooves of Spinnler to be “grooves” and for the narrow grooves to be “sipes”.
Spinnler does not directly define the depths/widths of its grooves/sipes in its tread pattern. As such, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to other tires within the art for conventional depths/widths to apply to the tire of Spinnler so as to obtain a working tire. Takahashi, for example, is tied to a heavy-duty tire [0001] with a tread pattern containing blocks, longitudinal cuts, and transverse grooves [see Figs. 2-3, 5]. The groove width GW2 of its shoulder lateral grooves [see Fig. 5] ranges from 2.2 to 4.5% of the TW, and the associated groove depth GD2 ranges from 4.8 – 7.8% of the TW [0065]. Additionally, the groove depth of the circumferential cuts “10” ranges from 5.5-8.0% of the TW [0062].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the grooves of Spinnler to have the width/depth suggested by Takahashi. One would have been motivated in order to obtain sufficient drainage performance, wear resistance, and steering stability [0062, 0064], as well as to obtain a working tire by applying these conventional sizes with a reasonable expectation of success. In making such a modification, the depth of the lateral grooves of Spinnler would be at least 50% of the height of the tread, as the depth GD2 of the lateral groove significantly overlaps with the depth of the circumferential groove GD1, such that it must be at least 50% of the total depth. Additionally, a minimum width of the shoulder lateral groove of 2.2% of TW would at least be 20% of the said depth (where the maximum depth is 8% of the TW), such that the lateral groove must satisfy the width requirement as well. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Adam teaches a tire tread for large motor vehicles [title, Col1 L4-18], which is akin to heavy-duty vehicles. The tread pattern has sipes [see Fig. 3], wherein a sipe is conventionally considered a groove having a width in the range from 0.15% to 1% of the tread width. The sipes may have a depth equal to the neighboring depth of nearby grooves [Col1 L62- Col2 L20].
Because Spinnler is silent as to the specific dimensions of its sipes, one would find it obvious to look to other tires within the art for conventional depths/widths to obtain a working tire. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the sipes of Spinnler to have the width/depth as suggested by Adam, so as to obtain the conventional benefits associated with proper sipe sizing such as proper rigidity, traction, drainage, etc., with a reasonable expectation of success. In making such a modification, the depth of the sipes may be equal to the depth of other grooves (such that it satisfies the depth requirement), and with a width of down to 0.15% of the tread width it would also be significantly less than 20% of height of the tread. For example if the lateral/circumferential grooves as suggested by Takahashi have a depth of 6% of the TW, the width of the sipe (when it has a width of 0.15% of the TW) would be as low as 2.5% as that of the height of the tread (significantly less than the 20% required by the claim). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Spinnler’s Fig. 2 shows that each of the cuts in the median row have ends opening into the respective longitudinal cuts, and the first transverse groove/second transverse sipe as described previously have ends opening to the longitudinal cuts. Spinnler discloses a terminating sipe in the intermediate rows with an end terminating in the intermediate block, however it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/design the tread pattern to have a “through” cut as opposed to a terminating cut in a block depending upon their design criteria. Such design choices in the art of tires are very common, and the performance level of the tire for these two types of cuts (terminating vs through) may additionally be similar, such that it would be obvious for a simple substitution of groove types so as to obtain predictable results on the performance of the tire depending on the exact characteristics desired. For example, Nakajima discloses a pneumatic tire for improving braking/driving performance on icy and snowy roads [abstract], where the inventive tire may have a tread pattern as shown in Figs. 1 or 2 [0003]. Fig. 1 depicts the tread pattern with grooves/sipes in the intermediate/median land portions which terminate before reaching a longitudinal cut, such that they do not respectively cross the full land portion. Fig. 2, in contrast, depicts the intermediate/median land portions with grooves/sipes which fully cross the land portion and reach both respective longitudinal cuts on either side of the land portion. Fig. 2 achieves similar results as Fig. 1 by decreasing the groove width of its grooves [see groove width of Fig. 2 compared with terminating grooves of Fig. 1 and the conventional example of Fig. 3]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to alternatively provide the tread pattern of Spinnler with “through” cuts in the intermediate row as opposed to terminating cuts, as Nakajima suggests that “through” cuts as in its inventive tire Fig. 2 are an alternative to terminating cuts in its inventive tire Fig. 1. Both of the inventive tires disclosed by Nakajima have excellent performance, specifically in braking, abrasion resistance, steering stability [Table 1], such that one of ordinary skill in the art would find the cuts in the intermediate rows to be a design choice between the two options (“through” or terminating), and one would readily modify the tread pattern of Spinnler so as to make the terminating cuts into “through” cuts with a reasonable expectation of success as this would be merely simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In the alternate regarding having the intermediate row with ends that open into respective cuts, Takahashi2 teaches a pneumatic tire with a variety of tread patterns. Fig. 1 is tied to the inventive tire with terminating grooves in the intermediate land portions, while Fig. 3 is an alternative inventive tread pattern of the invention which has grooves which fully cross the intermediate land portion and have ends that open into both adjacent longitudinal cuts “1” and “2”. The only difference between the two figures is whether the groove is a terminating groove or a through groove. Tables 1-2 have results from Figs. 1 and 3, respectively, wherein both results have beneficial performance aspects. For example, Table 2 shows that the tread pattern shows similar improvements in steering stability and noise level as in the non-through case (Table 1), wherein Table 2 sees steering stability improvements of 101 and 103 compared to a comparative tire with a value of 100 and Table 1 sees steering stability improvement of 102 compared to a comparative tire with a value of 100. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to alternatively provide the tread pattern of Spinnler with “through” cuts in the intermediate row as opposed to terminating cuts, as Takahashi2 suggests that the tread pattern with “through” cuts in the intermediate row as opposed to terminating cuts are an alternative. As stated previously, the experimental testing of the two tires in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 (wherein the only difference is whether the groove is terminating or “through”) show similar results with improved steering stability and noise level [Tables 1-2], such that one would readily modify the tread pattern of Spinnler so as to make the terminating cuts into “through” cuts with a reasonable expectation of success as this would be merely simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Further regarding claim 1, Spinnler does not explicitly show the outer longitudinal cuts linearly extending such that they extend circumferentially at a same axial position over the entire circumference of the tire. Spinnler Fig. 2 shows outer longitudinal cuts that are in a rough “zigzag” shape. However, it is well known within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/design the tread pattern to have a straight outer longitudinal groove as opposed to zigzag depending upon the exact design criteria. Such design choices in the art of tires are very common, and the expected performance of the tire for these two types of longitudinal cut (straight vs zigzag) are well known, such that it would be obvious for a simple substitution of groove types so as to obtain predictable results on the performance of the tire depending on the exact characteristics desired. As explained below in greater detail, the references of Haga, Hibino, and Numata outline the rationale for why a skilled artisan would choose a straight outer circumferential groove as opposed to a zigzag outer circumferential groove, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to situate the outer circumferential grooves to be straight.
Haga, tied to heavy-load vehicles [0001], teaches a tire tread which may have 5 land portions [see Figs. 3-5 for example]. The outermost circumferential grooves (2a, 2b), may be arranged into a zigzag shape or a linear shape [0032], wherein several of the embodiments have zigzag outer circumferential grooves and several have straight circumferential grooves [see Figs. 1-6]. The zigzag shape of the outer circumferential groove leads to an increase in the number of edge components in the tire width direction, which improves driving performance and braking performance [0032].
Hibino, which may be tied to heavy-load vehicles [pg. 2 of machine translation], teaches a tire tread with 5 land portions [see Fig. 1]. The shoulder main grooves “4” may extend in a linear fashion, or in a zigzag/wave shape [pg. 3 of machine translation]. When the shoulder grooves extend in a linear fashion, it allows for the smooth discharge of water from the grooves to the rear in the tire rotation direction, thereby improving the wet performance [pg. 3 of machine translation].
Numata, tied to a heavy-duty tire [0001], teaches a tire tread with 5 land portions [see Fig. 2]. The shoulder main grooves are made to extend straight and continuously so as to secure the drainage performance of the tread to improve the wet performance, while the center main grooves are made to be in a zigzag shape so as to secure an axial edge component of the center main grooves and improve the rolling resistance performance [0034, 0036].
As detailed above, a straight shoulder circumferential groove is chosen in order to maximize the discharge of water from the grooves improving wet performance, while zigzag grooves are chosen so as to improve the edge components which improve driving and braking performance. It is well known in the art (as in both Haga and Hibino), that a choice between these two types of circumferential grooves may readily be chosen depending on the specific design criteria (as both references specifically state that either of the two types may be utilized). And as Numata shows, it is also well known within the art that the two types of circumferential grooves may be utilized together, such that the outer circumferential grooves are both made linear in order to enhance water performance while the centermost circumferential grooves are made zigzag so as to secure the axial edge components. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple substitution of groove types so as to obtain predictable results on the performance of the tire, wherein the outer longitudinal cuts would be made to be linearly extending around the entire circumference of the tire in order to improve the wet performance of the tire [Hibino pg. 3 of machine translation, Numata 0034-0036]. See MPEP 2143. And with this modification, the inner longitudinal cuts would remain the zigzag cuts as shown in Fig. 2 of Spinnler.
As in Fig. 2 of Spinnler, the median blocks are clearly arranged in a “hexagonal” shape in the same manner as the blocks of the instant application. Spinnler does not explicitly show the median blocks divided by a transverse sipe that has a first end before the intermediate row transverse sipes and a second end after the intermediate row transverse sipes. Tanaka teaches a pneumatic tire which is not limited to a specific use, with 5 land portions and 4 longitudinal cuts [see Fig. 1]. The median blocks located on the tire equator have transverse sipes “21” which fully cross each median block. The sipe “21” is arranged in an S-shape, where both ends of the sipe are located from 5-25% of the length of the block from the respective outer circumferential ends (DC1 and DC2) [see Fig. 3, 0056]. The overall circumferential length of the sipe is 55-85% of the center block [0058].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the median blocks of Spinnler to have the center sipes as suggested by Tanaka. One would have been motivated so as to disperse ground contact pressure of the block, to improve brake and uneven wear performance [0058]. When Spinnler is in view of Tanaka, the sipe would have one end located at a distance of 5-25% of the length of the block from the top, and the other end at a distance of 5-25% of the length of the block from the bottom of the block. Because the median blocks of Spinnler have the neighboring intermediate row sipes at a position of roughly 50% of the circumferential extent, the ends of the median row transverse sipe would necessarily be located above and below the intermediate sipe. An annotated Fig. 2 of Spinnler is included below to show what the median blocks would look like as modified with the center sipes of Tanaka.
PNG
media_image3.png
571
686
media_image3.png
Greyscale
And lastly regarding claim 1, Spinnler as modified by Nakajima or Takahashi2 above have a transverse sipe that cuts fully across the intermediate row. These through-sipes would thus necessarily be located between the two dividing transverse cuts in each intermediate row (wherein the dividing cuts are the cuts which are part groove and part sipe in the intermediate row).
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Spinnler makes obvious a tire wherein each outer longitudinal cut has a mean line positioned at a mean distance from 20 to 35% of the width of the tread (First, it is noted that from a simple observation of Fig. 2 of Spinnler, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the mean distance D1 to land within the range of 20-35% of the width of the tread, because the outer longitudinal cuts are located in the outer portion of the tread in substantially the same location as that of the instant application [see instant Fig. 1 compared to Spinnler’s Fig. 2]. Additionally and alternatively, an annotated Fig. 2 from Spinnler is included below to facilitate discussion. The width of the tread is indicated below, and it has a standard value of 1.00 for easy comparisons. The median plane is marked below by the point that is halfway from one of the tread edges, as it is in the middle of the tread. The distance D1 is marked by the dotted arrows below, measuring out from the median plane to the midpoints of the outer longitudinal cuts. These distance measure at 0.31 to 0.32 compared to that of the width of the tread, such that the mean distance would be 31.5% which is within the claimed ranges. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
PNG
media_image4.png
409
1195
media_image4.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process, specifically in choosing a mean distance D1 value as described above. 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). Based on Fig. 2 of Spinnler, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that a mean distance D1 value as described above is about 31.5%, thus suggesting the claimed limitation that D1 is in a range between 20% and 35%.
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Spinnler makes obvious a tire wherein each transversely inner end of the first transverse groove portion in the intermediate row is positioned at a distance D2 from 10-25% of the width of the tread (First, it is noted that from a simple observation of Fig. 2 of Spinnler, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the mean distance D2 to land within the range of 10-25% of the width of the tread, because the first transverse groove portions are located in the portion of the tread in substantially the same location as that of the instant application [see instant Fig. 1 compared to Spinnler’s Fig. 2]. Additionally and alternatively, an annotated Fig. 2 from Spinnler is included below to facilitate discussion. The width of the tread is indicated below, and it has a standard value of 1.00 for easy comparisons. The median plane is marked below by the point that is halfway from one of the tread edges, as it is in the middle of the tread. The distance D2 is marked by the dotted arrows below, measuring out from the median plane to the inner end of the first transverse groove portion. These distance measure at 0.24 to 0.25 compared to that of the width of the tread, such that the mean distance would be 24.5% which is within the claimed ranges. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
PNG
media_image5.png
550
1246
media_image5.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process, specifically in choosing a mean distance D2 value as described above. 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). Based on Fig. 2 of Spinnler, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that a mean distance D2 value as described above is about 24.5%, thus suggesting the claimed limitation that D2 is in a range between 10% and 25%.
Regarding claims 6-7, modified Spinnler makes obvious a tire wherein each inner longitudinal cut has a mean line positioned at a mean distance D3 from 5-20% of the width of the tread (First, it is noted that from a simple observation of Fig. 2 of Spinnler, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the mean distance D3 to land within the range of 5-20% of the width of the tread, because the inner longitudinal cuts are located in substantially the same location as that of the instant application [see instant Fig. 1 compared to Spinnler’s Fig. 2]. Additionally and alternatively, an annotated Fig. 2 from Spinnler is included below to facilitate discussion. The width of the tread is indicated below, and it has a standard value of 1.00 for easy comparisons. The median plane is marked below by the point that is halfway from one of the tread edges, as it is in the middle of the tread. The distance D3 is marked by the dotted arrows below, measuring out from the median plane to the inner end of the first transverse groove portion. These distance measure at 0.10 to 0.11 compared to that of the width of the tread, such that the mean distance would be 10.5% which is within the claimed ranges. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
E
PNG
media_image6.png
400
1331
media_image6.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process, specifically in choosing a mean distance D3 value as described above. 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). Based on Fig. 2 of Spinnler, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that a mean distance D3 value as described above is about 10.5%, thus suggesting the claimed limitation that D3 is in a range between 5% and 20%.
Regarding claim 8, modified Spinnler makes obvious a tread wherein each longitudinal cut separating two adjacent rows is a longitudinal sipe (in Fig. 2 of Spinnler, there are 4 longitudinal cuts which are all thin in width compared to that of the wide width groove in the lateral/intermediate rows. These longitudinal cuts are each considered sipes because they are of thin widths, as detailed previously in the rejection of claim 1 above. Additionally, it is noted that the tread pattern of Spinnler is substantially similar to the tread pattern of the instant application (similarities in groove sizes, tread pattern, inventor, assignee). Wherein the similarly sized grooves of the instant application’s longitudinal cuts are considered to be sipes, it would be reasonable for a skilled artisan to similarly consider the thin longitudinal cuts of Spinnler to be sipes).
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Spinnler makes obvious a tread wherein the transverse groove width W1 is equal to 18% to 35% of the sum of the transverse groove width W1 and the block length B1 (an annotated Fig. 2 is included below to facilitate discussion. “1” is the measure of the transverse groove width and it is given a standard value of 1.00 for easy comparison. “2” is the measure of the block length in the lateral row, and it has a measured value of approximately 3.14. This equates to a transverse groove width which is 24.2% of the sum of the transverse groove width and the block length (4.14 for these purposes). This is well within the claimed ranges. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
PNG
media_image7.png
368
432
media_image7.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process, specifically in choosing a transverse groove width compared to a sum of the transverse groove width and block length value as described above. 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). Based on Fig. 2 of Spinnler, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that transverse groove width is about 24.2% of the sum of lengths, thus suggesting the claimed limitation that the transverse groove width is in a range between 18% and 35%.
Regarding claim 10, modified Spinnler makes obvious a tread wherein each block in a lateral row is delimited by two consecutive transverse grooves (the transverse grooves in the lateral rows, as identified in the rejection of claim 1 above, clearly delimit the region into a series of blocks), having a block height H1 and a block length B1 wherein the block height H1 is at most equal to 80% of the block length B1 (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, the grooves of Spinnler in the lateral row may have a depth ranging from 4.8-7.8% of the TW and a width from 2.2 to 4.5% of the TW, where the depth of the transverse groove would similarly be the block height in the lateral row. As in the rejection of claims 11-12 above, the block length B1 in the lateral row has a length that is approximately 3.14 times that of the transverse groove width. Within these suggested ranges, there are numerous embodiments wherein the block height is less than 80% of the block length. For example, when a groove width is 3% of TW (within the range of 2.2 to 4.5% TW) and the block length is 9.42 TW (which is 3% TW times 3.14 as suggested by the figures to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the claimed limitation would be satisfied when the groove depth is less than 7.5 times TW. The range of block depths suggested by modified Spinnler significantly overlaps with this (where the depth may range from 4.8 to 7.8% TW). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 13, modified Spinnler makes obvious a tire wherein at least one ventilation cavity opening into the tread surface having a depth of 70% of the height is positioned between two consecutive transverse grooves in the same lateral row (as in Figs. 1-2 and 5 of Spinnler, there is clearly a ventilation cavity present in each of the lateral rows between each transverse groove. A skilled artisan would consider this a ventilation cavity because it is a hole present on the block that extends significantly inwards into the tread body of the block, and given the appearance as in Figs. 2 and 5 it would be reasonable to expect that the cavity extends at least 70% of the height of the tread. And additionally, the tread of Spinnler is substantially similar to that of the instant application which features the cavity with the same appearance, such that the overwhelming similarities would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider the hold of Spinnler to similarly be tied to ventilation cavities).
Regarding claim 14, modified Spinnler makes obvious a tire wherein the tread comprising two outer lateral faces each intersecting the tread surface at a lateral edge of the tread surface (one edge of the tire and lateral face is shown in Fig. 3, and the other lateral face is the other side of the tire shown in Fig. 4. This clearly connects to the tread surface, as in Figs. 1-4) all transverse grooves in a lateral row opening into a lateral face of the tread along an open section (from Fig. 2-4, the transverse grooves present in the lateral rows clearly extend to each lateral edge of the tire), wherein at least one ventilation cavity opening into a lateral face of the tread but not onto the tread surface is positioned between at least two surfaces into which consecutive transverse grooves open (as in Figs. 3-4, there is a ventilation cavity present on each sidewall that extends into the sidewall/lateral face of the tire. These are spaced apart such that one is present between each grouping of consecutive transverse grooves, as see in Figs. 3-4. These ventilation cavities do not extend to the tread surface, as seen in Fig. 2 which shows the tread surface and does not have these lateral face ventilation cavities. A skilled artisan would consider these surfaces a ventilation cavity because it is a hole present on the lateral face that extends significantly inwards into the tread body of the block. And additionally, the tread of Spinnler is substantially similar to that of the instant application which features the cavity with the same appearance, such that the overwhelming similarities would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider the hold of Spinnler to similarly be tied to ventilation cavities at this location).
Regarding claim 15, modified Spinnler makes obvious a tire for a heavy-duty vehicle that comprises the tread according to claim 1 (Spinnler is tied to a tire tread as shown in Figs. 1-5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the tread pattern of Spinnler in a tread of a pneumatic tire since official notice is taken that it is well known / conventional per se in the tire art to use a tread pattern in a tread of a pneumatic tire to improve traction performance / braking performance. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the tread pattern of Spinnler in a pneumatic tire for the benefit of obtaining a real world / practical application of the design of Spinnler’s tread pattern. Additionally, it is noted that this “for a heavy-duty vehicle” is construed as intended use as no specific structural limitations are required, such that the tread/tire of Spinnler would clearly be able to be used with a heavy-duty vehicle. Additionally, it is noted that the tread of Spinnler and that of the instant application are substantially similar in design/tread pattern/assignee/inventor/etc., such that it would be reasonable to consider the tire of Spinnler a heavy-duty tire on account of the design of its tread pattern. And reference is made to the rejection of claim 1 above)
Regarding claim 16, modified Spinnler makes obvious a tire comprising at least one ventilation cavity positioned along the longitudinal direction between two consecutive transverse grooves, wherein the ventilation cavity is octagonal (as in Figs. 1-2 and 5 of Spinnler, there is clearly a ventilation cavity present in each of the lateral rows between each transverse groove. A skilled artisan would consider this a ventilation cavity because it is a hole present on the block that extends significantly inwards into the tread body of the block, and given the appearance as in Figs. 2 and 5 it would be reasonable to expect that the cavity extends at least 70% of the height of the tread. And additionally, the tread of Spinnler is substantially similar to that of the instant application which features the cavity with the same appearance, such that the overwhelming similarities would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider the hold of Spinnler to similarly be tied to ventilation cavities. While Spinnler does not directly disclose the ventilation cavity as octagonal, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice of which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. See MPEP2144.04, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the instant written specification is entirely silent as to the shape of the ventilation cavity and any possible benefits or effects of having the ventilation cavity in a specific shape, such that no persuasive evidence has been presented).
Regarding claim 17, modified Spinnler makes obvious a tire wherein at least one ventilation cavity having an arcuate radially outer contour, which opens into a lateral face of the tread but not into the tread surface, and positioned between two consecutive transverse grooves in a same lateral row (as in Figs 1-5 of Spinnler, a ventilation cavity on the outer lateral face of the tread is clearly visible, which is located between adjacent transverse grooves and does not reach onto the tread surface. Note that Applicant agrees in their Remarks filed 4/8/2025 pg. 11-12 that this annotated feature “C” is a ventilation cavity on the lateral face of the tire and that does not reach onto the tread surface. As in Figs. 1-5, the cavity has a bowed radially outer surface (particularly evident in Fig. 5). It being noted that as the instant specification does not specifically define the term “arcuate radially outer contour”, the term is given the broadest reasonable interpretation. In this case, the ventilation cavity is bowed inward at this position, such that it would reasonably be considered “arcuate”. And additionally, the ventilation cavity of Spinnler appears to be substantially similar to what is depicted in the instant application Spinnler Fig. 1, for example).
In the alternate, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spinnler (USD782403S, of record) in view of Takahashi (US2007/0151643A1, of record), in view of Adam (US5211781A, of record), in view of either Nakajima (JPH02133205A, of record) or Takahashi2 (US8439093B2, of record), and in view of at least one of Haga (US2014/0238568A1, of record), Hibino (JP2016159861A, of record), and/or Numata (US2016/0297254A1, of record), and in view of Tanaka (US2020/0001659A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spinnler2 (US2019/0329597A1, of record).
Regarding claim 13, modified Spinnler clearly discloses a tread wherein there are ventilation cavities on the outer lateral rows [see Figs. 1-2]. These cavities are present between each group of consecutive transverse grooves, such that one is present on each shoulder block and extend radially inward into the block. Spinnler does not explicitly disclose the radial depth of the ventilation cavity, and as such it would have been obvious to look to other tires with ventilation cavities with ideal depths. Spinnler2 is tied to a civil engineering tire [title], wherein it is recognized that a civil engineering tire is a type of heavy-duty tire. The tread surface has edge parts “11” which are formed on the axial outside of the tread [Fig. 1]. The edge parts have ventilation cavity’s “5” [0053,0055, Fig. 1]. The ventilation cavity has a total depth that is substantially equal to the depth “P” of the grooves delimiting the block [0053].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the ventilation cavity of Spinnler to have a depth that it equivalent to surrounding grooves as in Spinnler2. One would have been motivated so as to reduce the heat levels of the tread regardless of the state of wear of the tread [0007-0008, 0050, 0059]. In making such a modification, the depth of the ventilation cavity of Spinnler would be substantially equivalent to that of the surrounding grooves, wherein as in the rejection of claim 1 above the grooves of Spinnler in view of Takahashi/Adam have transverse/circumferential groove depths which overlap (meaning that the ventilation cavity of Spinnler would necessarily meet the claimed depth of at least 70% of the height of the tread). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the alternate, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spinnler (USD782403S, of record) in view of Takahashi (US2007/0151643A1, of record), in view of Adam (US5211781A, of record), in view of either Nakajima (JPH02133205A, of record) or Takahashi2 (US8439093B2, of record), in view of at least one of Haga (US2014/0238568A1, of record), Hibino (JP2016159861A, of record), and/or Numata (US2016/0297254A1, of record), and in view of Tanaka (US2020/0001659A1, of record), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Spinnler2 (US2019/0329597A1, of record).
Regarding claim 16, modified Spinnler clearly discloses a tread wherein there are ventilation cavities on the outer lateral rows [see Figs. 1-2]. These cavities are present between each group of consecutive transverse grooves, such that one is present on each shoulder block and extend radially inward into the block. Spinnler does not explicitly disclose the radial depth of the ventilation cavity, and as such it would have been obvious to look to other tires with ventilation cavities with ideal depths. Spinnler2 is tied to a civil engineering tire [title], wherein it is recognized that a civil engineering tire is a type of heavy-duty tire. The tread surface has edge parts “11” which are formed on the axial outside of the tread [Fig. 1]. The edge parts have ventilation cavity’s “5” [0053,0055, Fig. 1]. The ventilation cavity has a total depth that is substantially equal to the depth “P” of the grooves delimiting the block [0053].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the ventilation cavity of Spinnler to have a depth that it equivalent to surrounding grooves as in Spinnler2. One would have been motivated so as to reduce the heat levels of the tread regardless of the state of wear of the tread [0007-0008, 0050, 0059]. In making such a modification, the depth of the ventilation cavity of Spinnler would be substantially equivalent to that of the surrounding grooves, wherein as in the rejection of claim 1 above the grooves of Spinnler in view of Takahashi/Adam have transverse/circumferential groove depths which overlap (meaning that the ventilation cavity of Spinnler would necessarily meet the claimed depth of at least 70% of the height of the tread). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). While Spinnler does not directly disclose the ventilation cavity as octagonal, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice of which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. See MPEP2144.04, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the instant written specification is entirely silent as to the shape of the ventilation cavity and any possible benefits or effects of having the ventilation cavity in a specific shape, such that no persuasive evidence has been presented).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the drawings in the cited references are not to scale and should not be utilized in the rejections, on pgs. 11-12 of their Remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously cited, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125. Applicant’s cited case law on pgs. 10-11 acknowledges that the drawings must be considered in terms of what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, the person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to glean a great amount of information from the tire tread as depicted by Spinnler, including information on the types of grooves present and their relative positioning to each other. As tire tread plane views are very common within the art, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to situate a tread to the dimensions as reasonably suggested by Spinnler’s Figures.
Applicant argues on pgs. 12-13 that one would not vary the design of Spinnler because Spinnler is a design patent, as these modifications would make Spinnler unsuitable for its intended purpose (which is the appearance of the tire).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Spinnler discloses a design of a tire tread, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the tread pattern of Spinnler in a tread of a pneumatic tire because the design of a tread would conventionally be used in the tire art in a pneumatic tire so as to improve the traction/braking performance. In other words, it would have been obvious to use the design/ornamentation of Spinnler so as to make a pneumatic tire so as to obtain a real world/practical application of the ornamental design of Spinnler’s design. Therefore, the modification of a tire suggested by Spinnler’s design would not be a destruction of the prior art of Spinnler, but rather an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the art would make in having access to the tire tread suggested by Spinnler’s design and the references Takahashi, Adam, and the other references in the rejections of record. While Applicant contends that a design of Spinnler was never intended for functional/utility optimization, it is noted that a tire tread ornamental design would necessarily possess certain functional attributes when applied to a real-world tire so as to obtain a functioning/workable tire (such as a certain rigidity of the tread portion, drainage capabilities, etc.). And thus, when said ornamental design is on a real-world tire (which would have been obvious to do because of the existence of the ornamental design of the tire of Spinnler), it would thus have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the modifications as stated in the rejections above for the functional/structural benefits ascribed.
Applicant makes arguments while referring to design patent case law. It appears that these case law statutes are referring to obviousness for obtaining a design patent specifically, and the obviousness of combining various designs into a single design to obtain a design patent. The situation in this case is fundamentally different, wherein the instant application is for a utility patent, seeking to protect the functionality of the tire as claimed. While the base rejection does rely upon Spinnler (USD782403) for the tire as suggested by its ornamental design, the modifications applied are functional/structural modifications that would lead to an improved/obvious tread design as detailed in the rejections above.
Applicants’ annotations to specific parts of Spinnler (as on pg. 12-13 of the Remarks) are of Applicant’s own opinion and are not directly stated in Spinnler in any way as features that must be necessarily present for a tire based on its design to have. A design of Spinnler would not limit one of ordinary skill in the art from making conventional/well-known modifications within the art of tires where Spinnler is silent and does not teach away from those modifications.
Additionally, as Spinnler suggests a tire tread design, any modification of its suggested tire tread would still remain a tire tread and would be capable of functioning as a tire tread and thus would not be destroying the reference against its intended purpose.
Further, it must be noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). 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). In this case, in light of the tread pattern of Spinnler along with the conventional/standard alterations as explained in detail in the rejections above, a tire tread with all of the claimed features would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues on pgs. 13-14 that improper hindsight is utilized to form the rejection. Applicant argues that picking and choosing eight different references could not be accomplished without resorting to hindsight. Applicant argues various deficiencies of individual references on pgs. 14-15 in the rejection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the rationale in the rejections clearly lays out each of the cited modifications and the rationale given within the cited references, such that no improper hindsight has been utilized.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). This is particularly noteworthy, as two references are merely provided for their conventional suggestions of groove/sipe widths and depths (Takahashi and Adam), two references are provided to clearly demonstrate the obviousness of modifying a terminating groove to be through (Nakajima or Takahashi2), and 3 references are provided to clearly demonstrate well known features in the art of circumferential cut structure (zigzag vs straight, in Haga, Hibino, Numata). Therefore, even if the number of references did factor into obviousness (which it does not without more substantial rationale tied to it), the actual modifications to the tire of Spinnler in the rejections of record are considerably less than what a simple glance at a mere number of references would have one believe.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues against each of the individual references of Takahashi, Adam, and Takahashi2, and for the reasons as stated above, these attacks on the references individually is not found convincing.
Applicant references a reference “Tomida” on pg. 14. No Tomida reference is utilized in the rejections, and it is not clear what reference Applicant is referring to in these arguments.
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
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights