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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 10/20/2025. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, and 21-28 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 12, 13, 17, 19, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (US 2013/0186533 A1 - of Record) in view of Sato (JP 2013-126842 A, with English Machine Translation) and Tikka et al. (US 2019/0210410 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Kaneko teaches a tire (Para. [0039]) comprising a tread portion (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 1) comprising a plurality of blocks (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4; shoulder blocks) provided with a sipe (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5a). The sipe extends in a zigzag shape in a cross-section parallel to a ground contact surface (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5a) with a constant width and a cross-section perpendicular to a sipe length direction (Fig. 4, Ref. Num. 5; Para. [0064]). Kaneko teaches a sipe bottom (Fig. 4, Ref. Num. 51) that extends in a zigzag direction and is defined as the radially outermost extent of the widened portion so that all of the widened portion is located radially inside the sipe bottom; however, does not teach a tie bar dividing the first sipe into a first and second portion.
In an analogous art, Sato teaches a tire with sipes (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 20) where the sipes have a widened bottom (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 24) and a tie bar (Fig. 9, Ref. Num. 22) located in the middle of the sipe dividing the sipe into a first and second portion. This will divide the sipe into an axially outer first widening section and an axially inner second widening section. The sipe bottom of both the first and the second portions communicate with first and second widening portions respectively (Kaneko; Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 51a, 51b) that have a circular cross-section, a groove width wider than the width of the first and second portions, and extends in a zigzag shape (Fig. 4, Ref. Num. 51). Additionally, the first and second widening portions do not communicate with each other due to the tie bar in between them. Additionally, Sato teaches that the volume in the widened portions may differ (Para. [0073], which would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the outer first widening portion to have a greater volume than the inner second widening portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kaneko with Sato in order to add a tie bar to the middle of the sipe. This modification will improve drainage (Sato; Para. [0065]). However, the modified Kaneko does not teach the height or the width of the tie-bar.
In an analogous art, Tikka teaches a sipe with tie bars (Fig. 2b, Ref. Num. 422) where the width of the tie bars (Fig. 2b, Ref. Num. l11) is 0.3 to 10 mm (Para. [0057]), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 to 5 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness. Tikka also teaches that the tie bars have a depth of 0.1 to 2 mm from the tread surface of the tire (Para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Kaneko with Tikka to have the width of the tie bar be 0.3 to 10 mm and the height be 0.1 to 2 mm from the tread surface. This modification will allow for better water absorption (Tikka; Para. [0057]). As the total sipe height is 7.5 mm and the widened portion has an outermost point (equivalent to claimed sipe bottom) of 1.5 mm from the sipe bottom (Para. [0047]), that would mean the tie bar rises from the sipe bottom as the top of the tie bar is located radially outside the sipe bottom.
Regarding claim 3, Kaneko teaches that the sipe is symmetrical across the midpoint (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5a, 5b), which means that both the first and second widening portions will have the same zigzag pitch.
Regarding claim 5, Kaneko teaches that the bottom of the sipe extends in a zigzag shape over the entire length (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 51), which means that the first widening portion does as well.
Regarding claim 6, Kaneko teaches a tread edge (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4; edge of shoulder blocks) and that first plurality of first blocks (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4) includes the tread edge.
Regarding claim 7, Kaneko teaches that the depth of the sipes is 7.5 mm (Para. [0047]); however, Kaneko does not teach the height of the tie bars.
In an analogous art, Tikka teaches that the tie bars have a depth of 0.1 to 2 mm from the tread surface of the tire (Para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Kaneko with Tikka in order to have the depth of the tie bars be 0.1 to 2.0 mm from the tread surface. This modification will help maintain the water drainage properties (Tikka; Para. [0054]). This would make the distance from a bottom of both the first and second widening portion to the top of the tie bar 66.7% to 98.7% of the sipe depth, which overlaps with the claimed range of 30% to 80% which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kaneko teaches that the volume of the first widening portion is larger than the volume of the second widening portion (Sato; Para. [0073]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 120% to 150% of the volume of the second widening portion which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 13, Kaneko teaches that the widening portion extends the length of the sipe (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 51a, 51b and since the tie-bar is in the center of the sipe (Sato; Fig. 9, Ref. Num. 22), the first and second widening portions will have the same length.
Regarding claims 17, modified Kaneko teaches that the tie-bar is arranged in a central position of each sipe (Sato; Fig. 9, Ref. Num. 22).
Regarding claim 19, Kaneko teaches that the sipe comprises a plurality of sipes (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5a, 5b).
Regarding claim 21, Kaneko teaches an embodiment where the sipe extend all the way to the side of the block (Fig. 4, Ref. Num. 5) so that both the first and second widening portions will open at the side surfaces of the block.
Regarding claim 22, Kaneko teaches that the zigzag shape of the sipe is a triangular wave shape (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5a).
Regarding claim 23, Kaneko teaches that the sipe does not communicate with other sipes or lateral grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5a).
Regarding claim 24, modified Kaneko teaches that the tie bar is the only tie bar in the sipe (Sato; Fig. 9, Ref. Num. 22).
Regarding claim 25, Kaneko teaches that the widened portion of the sipe has a diameter of 1.5 mm (Para. [0047]), which means the constant width section has a width of less than 1.5 mm.
Regarding claim 26, Kaneko teaches two shoulder circumferential grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 2; outermost grooves) and lateral grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 3) defining shoulder blocks where each block is provided with a plurality of the sipes (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5a, 5b) that are parallel.
Regarding claim 27, Kaneko teaches that the shoulder grooves are straight grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 2).
Regarding claim 28, Kaneko teaches that the sipes can extend all the way across the land area so they open to the sides of the shoulder blocks on both sides (Para. [0071]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (US 2013/0186533 A1), Sato (JP 2013-126842 A), and Tikka et al. (US 2019/0210410 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clemmer (US 2013/0153106 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kaneko teaches that the zigzag corners are triangular (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5) and not arc shaped; however, Clemmer teaches that arc shaped corners (Fig. 4) is a known alternative to triangular corners (Para. [0026] for zigzag sipes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Kaneko with Clemmer to have the zigzag shape have arc shaped corners as Clemmer teaches arc shaped corners being an art recognized alternative (Para. [0026]) to triangular corners.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (US 2013/0186533 A1), Sato (JP 2013-126842 A), and Tikka et al. (US 2019/0210410 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harada (US 2021/0031562 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kaneko does not teach a cap and base rubber layer.
In an analogous art, Harada teaches a tire with a cap layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. CA) and a base layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. UT) where the base layer has a hardness that is higher that the cap layer (Para. [0071]). Additionally, since the undertread starts at height from 30% to 70% of the circumferential groove depth from the bottom of the groove (Para. [0050]) and the bottom of the sipe is at the circumferential grove bottom (Kaneko; Para. [0047]), at least a part of the first and second widening portion will be located in the bae rubber layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Kaneko with Harada to form the tire with both a cap and base tread layer. This modification will improve on ice performance Harada (Para. [0071]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kaneko teaches that the undertread starts at height from 30% to 70% of the circumferential groove depth from the bottom of the groove (Harada; Para. [0050]). Since the circumferential groove depth of Kaneko is 9.2 mm (Para. [0041]), that would be the boundary layer between the cap and base layer is between 2.76 and 6.44 mm from the bottom of the first and second widening portions, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 mm or more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the rejection of record as the first and second widening portions are now defined as being located completely inside the sipe bottom so the tie bar of Sato, which was shown extending to the top of the widened portion, would not extend radially outward from the sipe bottom. However, Sato does not teach against the tie bar extending radially outward of the sipe bottom and since Tikka gives benefits to have the tie bar extend radially outward of the sipe bottom (Para. [0054, [0057]), It would have been obvious to have the tie bar extend radially out of the sipe bottom so that the modified tire of Kaneko meets the requirements of claim 1.
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