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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 02/21/2025. Claims 1-17 are currently pending for examination on the merits.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwabuchi (US 2010/0000649) (of record) in view of Roberts et al. (US 4,198,774) (Roberts) (of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Iwabuchi discloses a pneumatic tire (title; see Fig. 1), comprising: at least one mark (21) on a sidewall (1) of the pneumatic tire (see Fig. 2; [0067]), the at least one mark (21) including an outer surface having three non-annular elongated first protrusions (26) (see Modified Figure 3 below; [0071]), wherein the first protrusions (26) are disposed inside of an outer edge (25) of the mark (21) and the first protrusions (26) do not extend along the outer edge of the mark (21) (see Figs. 2 and 3; [0071]), and in a cross section of the mark (21) orthogonal to the traveling direction of the first protrusions (26), the cross section includes four recesses (see Modified Figure 3 below; [0028]), suggesting the claimed range of five or fewer recesses. Iwabuchi fails to disclose, however, that the first protrusions (26) have a trapezoidal cross sectional shape orthogonal to a traveling direction (circumferential direction) of the pneumatic tire. Instead, Iwabuchi discloses that the first protrusions have a triangular cross section orthogonal to the circumferential direction of the pneumatic tire (see Figs. 2 and 3; [0028]).
PNG
media_image1.png
288
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3, Iwabuchi
However, it is known in the art to configure protrusions within marks on a sidewall to have trapezoidal cross sectional shapes. For instance, Roberts teaches a similar pneumatic tire (abstract; Col. 3, lines 4-10) comprising a mark (11) on a sidewall (10) of the pneumatic tire (see Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 4-10), wherein the mark (11) includes a plurality of protrusions (13) having a trapezoidal cross sectional shape (see Figs. 3A and 3B; Col. 3, lines 12-13). Roberts further teaches that protrusions having trapezoidal cross sections are easy to manufacture and easy to keep clean (Col. 2, lines 12-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first protrusions disclosed by Iwabuchi to have trapezoidal cross sections, as taught by Roberts, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would allow for easy manufacturing and easy cleaning.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Iwabuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 2, respectively. Modified Iwabuchi further discloses that the at least one mark (Iwabuchi: 21) comprises one or more circular second protrusions (Iwabuchi: 25) protruding axially outward on an entire edge, the at least one mark (Iwabuchi: 21) being fringed with the circular second protrusions (Iwabuchi: 25) (Iwabuchi: see Figs. 2 and 3; [0071]). Furthermore, Roberts teaches that it is known in the art to fringe marks (Roberts: 11) on tire sidewalls (Roberts: 10) with circular protrusions (Roberts: 14) in order to provide high visibility for the mark (Roberts: 11) (Roberts: see Figs. 1 and 3A; Col. 1, lines 39-68; Col. 3, lines 47-59).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Iwabuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 2, respectively. Modified Iwabuchi further discloses that the sidewall (Iwabuchi: 1) includes a base face (Iwabuchi: 25) and a depression (Iwabuchi: see region of first protrusions 26) disposed on the base face (Iwabuchi: 25) (Iwabuchi: see Fig. 3), and the at least one mark (Iwabuchi: 21) is disposed on a bottom face of the depression (Iwabuchi: see Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Iwabuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 2, respectively. Modified Iwabuchi further discloses that Figure 3 is a cross section of the mark (Iwabuchi: 21) shown in Figure 2 taken along a direction parallel to a radial direction of the mark (Iwabuchi: 21) (Iwabuchi: [0028]; see Figs. 2 and 3). Thus, based on Fig. 3, modified Iwabuchi discloses that the three protrusions (Iwabuchi: 26) are arranged in a direction parallel to the radial direction of the mark (Iwabuchi: 21), suggesting the limitation that the first protrusions are opposite one another in a direction slanted at an angle of 10o or less relative to a radial direction of the at least one mark.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Iwabuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 3 and 4, respectively. Roberts teaches that each of the marks (Roberts: 11) on the sidewall (Roberts: 10) include a plurality of circular protrusions (Roberts: 14) fringing the marks (Roberts: 11) (Roberts: see Figs. 1 and 3A; Col. 3, lines 47-59). Roberts further teaches, in the case of the mark (Roberts: 11) formed as the letter “R” which has an outer edge and an inner edge, that the circular protrusions (Roberts: 14) can include an outer circular protrusion fringing an entire perimeter of an outer edge of the mark (Roberts: 11) and an inner circular protrusion fringing an entire perimeter of an inner edge of the mark (Roberts: 11) (Roberts: see Fig. 1). Roberts further teaches that such a configuration can give the mark (Roberts: 11) high visibility (Roberts: Col. 1, lines 39-68). Therefore, in the case of the mark (Iwabuchi: 21) disclosed by modified Iwabuchi that is shaped as the letter “O” which has an outer edge and an inner edge, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured this mark (Iwabuchi: 21) to have an outer circular protrusion and an inner circular protrusion, as taught by Roberts, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would allow the mark (Iwabuchi: 21) to have high visibility.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, modified Iwabuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 3 and 4, respectively. Modified Iwabuchi further discloses that the highest height of the at least one mark (Iwabuchi: 21) is equal to 0.4 mm (Iwabuchi: [0069]; see Fig. 3). Thus, since this highest height is clearly larger than an absolute value of a difference between an axial position of a tip face at an axially outermost site of the mark (Iwabuchi: 21) and an axial position of the second circular protrusion (Iwabuchi: 25) at an axially outermost site (Iwabuchi: see Fig. 3), modified Iwabuchi clearly suggests the claimed range of 5 mm or less.
Regarding claim 14, modified Iwabuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Roberts further teaches that the protrusions (Roberts: 29) can have a cross sectional shape such that the protrusions (Roberts: 29) include two chamfered corners located at a base of the trapezoid, wherein the outer surface of the mark (Roberts: 11) includes a flat face between bases of two adjacent protrusions (Roberts: 29) (Roberts: see Fig. 5E; Col. 5, lines 35-36). Roberts further teaches that this cross sectional shape leads to enhanced visibility of the mark (Roberts: 11) (Roberts: Col. 2, lines 12-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the protrusions (Iwabuchi: 26) in modified Iwabuchi to satisfy the claimed shape because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to enhanced visibility of the mark.
Regarding claim 15, modified Iwabuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Roberts further teaches that the mark (Roberts: 11) and the protrusions (Roberts: 29) can be configured in such a way that the outer surface of the mark (Roberts: 11) includes a flat face connected to bases of the protrusions (Roberts: 29) (Roberts: see Fig. 5E; Col. 5, lines 35-36). Roberts further teaches that this configuration leads to enhanced visibility of the mark (Roberts: 11) (Roberts: Col. 2, lines 12-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the mark (Iwabuchi: 21) and the protrusions (Iwabuchi: 26) in modified Iwabuchi to satisfy the claimed shape because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to enhanced visibility of the mark.
Regarding claim 16, modified Iwabuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Roberts further teaches that the protrusions (Roberts: 26) can alternately have a sinusoidal cross sectional shape, wherein the protrusions (Roberts: 26) include a tip face that is curved and two slope faces that are flat faces (Roberts: see Fig. 5C; Col. 5, lines 32-33). Roberts also teaches that this cross sectional shape leads to easy manufacturing and easy cleaning (Roberts: Col. 2, lines 12-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the protrusions (Iwabuchi: 26) in modified Iwabuchi to satisfy the claimed shape because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so could lead to easy manufacturing and easy cleaning.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwabuchi (US 2010/0000649) (of record) in view of Roberts et al. (US 4,198,774) (Roberts) (of record) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shimizu (US 2022/0324268) (US 2022/0324268) (of record).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, modified Iwabuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Modified Iwabuchi further discloses that the first protrusions (Iwabuchi: 26) each have an elongated tip face that is a flat face (Roberts: see Fig. 3A). Modified Iwabuchi fails to disclose, however, that the first protrusions (Iwabuchi: 26) have two chamfered corners at opposite edges of the tip face in cross section, and the one or more first protrusions include two slope faces that are curved faces.
Shimizu teaches a similar pneumatic tire (title) comprising a mark (H) on a sidewall (31) of the pneumatic tire (see Fig. 2), wherein the mark (H) includes a plurality of protrusions (51) having a substantially trapezoidal cross sectional shape (see Figs. 5 and 6; [0061]). Shimizu further teaches that the protrusions can have two chamfered corners at opposite edges (PA) of an elongated tip face (U) that is a flat face (see Fig. 10; [0074]). Examiner notes that these two chamfered corners also constitute two slope faces that are curved faces, thus suggesting the limitations in claims 13 and 17. Shimizu further teaches that chamfered edges/slope faces like this can improve the cleaning performance of the mark (H) ([0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first protrusions disclosed by modified Iwabuchi to have the claimed chamfered corners/slope faces, as taught by Shimizu, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the cleaning performance of the mark. Thus, modified Iwabuchi satisfies all of the limitations in claims 13 and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have overcome each and every drawing objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/24/2024.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous 102 and 103 rejections in view of Fujioka.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments related to amended claims 1 and 2, examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the trapezoidal protrusions (25) and the triangular protrusions (26) disclosed by Iwabuchi are significantly different from the claimed protrusions. However, applicant gives no other explanation as to how these protrusions are different from the claimed protrusions. Additionally, examiner notes that the trapezoidal protrusions (25) are not referenced in the rejection as suggesting the claimed first protrusions since these protrusions (25) are clearly disposed on an outer edge of the mark (21) (see Figs. 2 and 3). Rather, the rejection points to the triangular protrusions (26) as suggesting all of the limitations of the claimed first protrusions except for the claimed trapezoidal cross sectional shape. However, as noted in the rejection, it is obvious at least in view of Roberts to modify protrusions within marks on a sidewall to have trapezoidal cross sectional shapes in order to achieve easy manufacturing and easy cleaning. Applicant has not presented any arguments against the combination of Iwabuchi and Roberts. Thus, the rejection still stands.
Applicant further argues individually against the Roberts reference. Specifically, applicant argues that Roberts fails to disclose the claimed number of first protrusions. However, examiner notes that Roberts is not relied upon in the rejection to teach the claimed number of protrusions since Iwabuchi already suggests a mark on a sidewall with four or fewer protrusions. Rather, Roberts is relied upon to teach the claimed trapezoidal cross section of the protrusions. 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 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). Thus, it is well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the protrusions disclosed by Iwabuchi with the cross sectional shape taught by Roberts without incorporating the number of protrusions taught by Roberts, especially since these two teachings are unrelated to each other. What’s more, 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). Thus, since applicant fails to provide arguments against the combination of Iwabuchi and Roberts and only argues against Roberts individually, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments related to amended claim 15, examiner disagrees. Specifically, applicant alleges that none of the cited references disclose any flat face at a first end in the arranging direction of the first protrusions. However, as noted in the above rejection, Roberts teaches that the mark (Roberts: 11) and the protrusions (Roberts: 29) can be configured in such a way that the outer surface of the mark (Roberts: 11) includes a flat face connected to bases of the protrusions (Roberts: 29) (Roberts: see Fig. 5E; Col. 5, lines 35-36). Since these flat faces are connected to both sides of the bases of each of the protrusions (Roberts: 29) (Roberts: see Fig. 5E), this teaching would necessarily entail including a flat face at the first end in the arranging direction of the first protrusions (Roberts: 29), even if the first end is not specifically shown in Fig. 5E. Therefore, since Roberts still teaches this feature of claim 15, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments related to amended claim 17, examiner disagrees. In the new ground of rejection for claim 17, examiner points to Shimizu as teaching the claimed chamfered corners and the claimed slope faces. However, applicant argues that Shimizu fails to teach the two sloped faces. To the contrary, examiner notes that under BRI the two chamfered corners taught by Shimizu can also be considered the claimed two slope faces since the chamfered corners include all of the structure required by the slope faces, namely that they are “curved faces.” Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As such, claims 1-17 stand rejected.
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 BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781