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 .
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.
3. Claim(s) 15-21 and 26-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamatsu (JP 8-282215, of record) and further in view of Nagahashi (US 20210129598, newly cited) and Sudo (JP 2012-183869, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 1-5, Wakamatsu is directed to a tire construction comprising sidewall portions including a background design 1 and text characters 2. More particularly, said design and said characters are defined by a plurality of ridges or elevations R1 and R2, wherein a spacing between respective ridges is greater in said design (spacing D1) as compared to in said characters (spacing D2). With further respect to spacings D1 and D2, Wakamatsu teaches (a) an exemplary spacing of 0.6 mm and (b) an exemplary ratio slightly greater than 4 (2.5 mm/0.6 mm) between D1 and D2.
Also, regarding claim 15 (and claim 16), said design includes a smooth surface between adjacent ridges or elevations R1. Additionally, as noted above, Wakamatsu teaches an exemplary spacing of 2.5 mm between adjacent ridges and such is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure of inventive spacings between 1.00 mm and 4.00 mm (Paragraph 21 in originally filed specification). While additional features of the ridges are not disclosed, it reasons that the claimed ratio between the area occupied by the base surface and the area of the ridges would be satisfied. It is emphasized that the spacing between ridges is a critical feature to said ratio and the exemplary spacing in Wakamatsu falls directly in the middle of the range taught by Applicant. Using such a spacing and common ridge dimensions (width), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Wakamatsu with a ratio in accordance to the broad range of the claimed invention. Nagahashi is further applied to evidence the common widths of decorative ridges (Paragraph 22) and such widths are considerably smaller than a width of the base surface or region between adjacent ridges. This relationship would result in a ratio between areas of the base surface and the ridges that is considerably greater than 1 and in accordance to the claimed invention (given that a height or radial extension of the base surface and the ridges is the same).
Lastly, regarding claim 15, it is generally well known that characters are commonly formed by including ridges that are embedded in a sidewall and thus are located below a smooth surface of the sidewall. Sudo (Figure 3) provides one example of a character formed in such a manner (ridges 22 are below a smooth outer surface). Sudo further teaches that such an arrangement, along with the presence of densely arranged ridges, provides high visibility. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the ridges R2 below a smooth sidewall surface.
Regarding claim 17, as noted above, an exemplary ratio is slightly greater than 4 (2.5 mm/0.6 mm).
With respect to claims 18-21, see the figures of Wakamatsu (emphasis on Figure 2).
As to claim 26, Sudo recognizes the wide variety of shapes that are commonly used for ridges in sidewall designs. It is particularly noted that Figure 3 of Sudo includes a top width that is smaller than a base width. Additionally, the actual dimensions for the height and width are consistent with those that are conventionally used in tire sidewall designs.
Regarding claim 27, the claims as currently drafted do not require the presence of depressions (claims require a dimension when depressions are present).
With respect to claims 28-31, the claimed dimensions are consistent with those that are conventionally used in tire sidewall designs. Additionally, as detailed above, a height of the ribs or ridges in Sudo that define the characters is smaller than a sidewall surface (high visibility is provided with such an arrangement due to the presence of densely arranged ridges).
As to claim 32, Wakamatsu teaches an angle between 10 and 90 degrees with respect to a tire circumferential direction (Wakamatsu discloses an angle between 0 and 80 degrees with respect to M).
4. Claim(s) 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamatsu, Nagahashi, and Sudo as applied in claim 15 above and further in view of Miyakoshi (JP 2018-52173, of record), Kuniak (DE 102013108786, of record), and/or Wakamatsu (JP 9-226328, of record).
As detailed above, the tire of Wakamatsu includes a background design and a plurality of characters having ridges or elevations. While Wakamatsu fails to describe the inclusion of zigzag or arcuate ridges, each of these arrangements is consistent with that which is commonly used in tire sidewall designs, as shown for example by Miyakoshi, Kuniak, and/or Wakamatsu ‘328. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of common ridge arrangements in the tire of Wakamatsu as a function of the desired aesthetic effect. It is further noted that Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a zigzag arrangement or an arcuate arrangement. Lastly, it is noted that Sudo also describes a wide variety of geometries for the ridges as well as a wide variety of arrangements for said ridges (linear, curved, mesh shape, scattered shape, etc.)- thus, the prior art as a whole recognizes the known use of a variety of ridge/elevation arrangements, including those required by the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed area ratio (in the background design) depends on more than spacing. It is emphasized that the claims define a ratio between the area of the base surface and the area of elevations. More particularly, respective areas are calculated by multiplying the widths (in the circumferential direction) and the heights or radial extents. In such an instance, the heights or radial extents of the base surface and the elevations are the same. Thus, any ratio between respective areas is a direct function of the variation in widths. In an exemplary embodiment of Wakamatsu, an interval D1 between ridges R1, which are described as small ridges, is 2.5 mm. This dimension corresponds with a width of the base surface. In terms of the width of said small ridges, it is well recognized that ridges associated with decorative tire assemblies have widths that are considerably smaller than 2.5 mm. Nagahashi (Paragraph 22) has been provided to support the Examiner’s previous position (and rebut Applicant’s argument) in regards to common widths of decorative ridges.
Applicant further contends that additional features such as the number of ridges per unit area, their orientation and distribution, and the fraction of the sidewall region that is actually occupied by the background design versus smooth base. It is unclear, though, how these parameters affect the claimed ratio between respective areas. The total area of the base surface is the sum of individual base surface areas between adjacent ridges, with individual base surface areas being a product of the width and height or radial extent. Similarly, the total surface area of the ridges is the sum of individual areas of the ridges, with individual ridge areas being a product of ridge widths and ridge heights or radial extents. With the radial extents of the base surface and the ridges being the same, a ratio between respective areas is simply a function of the different widths. More particularly, a ridge width in the background design is considerably smaller than a distance between adjacent ridges (corresponds with claimed base surface) such that a total area of the base surface would be considerably greater than a total area of the ridges. It is emphasized that an inventive concept of Wakamatsu is the inclusion of large spacings between ridges in the background design (as compared to spacings in the character or mark) and such appears to be consistent with an inventive concept identified by Applicant (see Paragraph 8 of Applicant’s original specification).
Applicant further argues that ridges R2 of the character or mark in Wakamatsu protrude at least 0.1 mm or more outward from the surface of R1, while the claims require that ridges R1 are embedded into a sidewall portion. It is emphasized, though, that ridges R2 can protrude at least 0.1 mm outward of ridges R1 while also being embedded in a sidewall portion. In such an instance, the placement of ridges R2 on a tire sidewall surface or within a groove present on a tire sidewall surface (in which case they would be embedded in a tire sidewall portion) would have been obvious as a function of the desired aesthetic effect. Sudo has been provided to evidence the known placement of ridges associated with a character or mark within a groove present on a tire sidewall surface. Again, characters or marks are commonly provided on tire sidewall surfaces or embedded in a tire sidewall surfaces (each is consistent with a known manner of forming tires with decorative assemblies). MPEP 2144.04 states that “matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art”. In such an instance, the two aforementioned locations for the character or mark are disclosed by the prior art and additionally, there is no indication that a mechanical function is associated with either of the claimed locations.
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, when using the range of ridge widths taught by Nagahashi and the exemplary width of 2.5 mm between adjacent ridges, a ratio between respective areas would range between approximately 1.67 and 5.
As to claim 24, Applicant contends that Kuniak and Wakamatsu ‘328 disclose various ridge shapes and decorative motifs, but they do not describe a pattern in which the angles of the zigzag portions of adjacent elevations/depressions change progressively. At a minimum, Figure 1 of Kuniak depicts rectilinearly extending ridges (region 5) that are separated by regions in which zigzag ridges 5a have first angles and zigzag ridges 5b have second angles that are smaller than said first angles (ridge angles progressively decrease until a rectilinearly arrangement is reached).
With respect to claim 25, the sidewall region in Wakamatsu that is devoid of marks or characters corresponds with the claimed “further sidewall portions”. Additionally, as evidenced by Kuniak, for example, a variation in ridge angles is present over the entire circumferential extent of the decorative body and thus, a variation in ridge angles would be present in both the sidewall portion provided with a background design and further sidewall portions.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 34 is allowed.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights