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 .
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) Claims 2, 3, 8, 15 and 16 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.
In claims 2, 3, 8, 15 and 16, the description of the dimples in each respective dependent claim appears to be inconsistent with the description of the dimples in claim 1 and is thereby ambiguous. In other words, the claimed number of dimples is ambiguous. The following changes are suggested::
(A) in claim 2 line 3, change “the dimples” to --dimples--;
(B) in claim 3 line 3, change “the dimples” to --dimples--;
(C) in claim 8 line 3, change “the dimples” to --dimples--;
(D) in claim 15 line 2, change “the dimples” to --dimples--; and
(E) in claim 16 line 3, change “the dimples” to --dimples--.
4) 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.
5) Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsihlas et al (WO 2014/145894) in view of Japan 304 (JP 60-036304 U) and/or Buresh (US 2011/0125465) and optionally further in view of Hayashi et al (US 2011/0030862).
Tsihlas et al discloses a retreaded pneumatic tire (heavy duty truck tire) comprising: a base tire, and a tread rubber for retread adhered to the base tire, wherein the tread rubber includes a first tread edge, a first shoulder circumferential groove adjacent to the first tread edge and extending continuously in a tire circumferential direction and lateral grooves extending from the shoulder circumferential groove to the tread edge [FIGURES 1, 3, 14]. The tread has a thickness T of 12 to 30 mm. The tread comprises an undertread having a thickness T18 of 1.5 mm or less.
In ONE EMBODIMENT [FIGURES 2-4], Tsihlas et al discloses providing strengthening members 24 (protrusions 24) on a groove bottom surface of each groove such that each strengthening member 24 (protrusion 24) extends from one groove wall surface of the groove to another groove wall surface of the groove [FIGURES 2-4]. The protrusions have a height T24 of 4 mm or less. The spacing S24 of the protrusions is 10 mm or less. The protrusions have a width, for example, of 8 mm. The strengthening members reduce crack initiation and/or propagation.
In ANOTHER EMBODIMENT [FIGURES 10-14], Tsihlas et al teaches providing a bottom surface of a groove with indentations 100. The indentation 100 defines a recessed area 100b, which may be generally conical [page 17 line 9]. The indentations having a length L100 of 12-18 mm and a depth U18 of 1 to 3 mm. The indentations are spaced apart by a distance D of 2 to 4 mm. The indentations increase skid depth of the tread to increase wear life.
Tsihlas et al does not recite one or more dimples being formed on a boundary between one of the groove wall surfaces and the groove bottom surface so as to extend over both the groove bottom surface and the one of the groove wall surfaces OR each of the one or more dimples crossing a boundary between the groove bottom surface and the one of the groove wall surfaces.
As to claims 1-3, 8, 15-17 and 21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Tsihlas et al’s retreaded tire having the ONE EMBODIMENT or the ANOTHER EMBODIMENT such that:
a groove surface of the shoulder circumferential groove is provided with dimples and one or more dimples is formed on a boundary between one of the groove wall surfaces and the groove bottom surface so as to extend over both the groove bottom surface and the one of the groove wall surfaces [claim 1],
at least one of the groove wall surfaces is provided with dimples that are not on the boundary [claim 2],
the groove bottom surface is provided with dimples that are not on the boundary
[claim 3],
a first groove wall surface on the first tread edge side is provided with dimples
[claim 8],
both of the groove wall surfaces are provided with dimples [claim 15],
the groove bottom surface is provided with dimples that are not on the boundary
[claim 16],
the shoulder circumferential groove has a first region and a second region, the groove bottom surface and at least one of the groove wall surfaces are provided with the dimples in the first region and the second region, the second region has the one or more dimples formed on the boundary, the first region has no dimple formed on the boundary [claim 17],
the shoulder circumferential groove has a first region and a second region, the groove bottom surface and one of the groove wall surfaces are provided with the dimples in both the first region and the second region, the second region has one or more dimples formed over both the groove bottom surface and the one of the groove wall surfaces so that each of the one or more dimples crosses a boundary between the groove bottom surface and the one of the groove wall surfaces, and the first region has no dimple formed over both the groove bottom surface and the one of the groove wall surfaces so as to cross the boundary [claim 21]
since (1) Japan 304 teaches providing a tire having a rubber tread comprising circumferential grooves such that hemispherical recesses 4 (dimples) are formed on a bottom surface and both wall surfaces of a groove so that, during use of the tire, distortion is dispersed and rubber cracks are prevented wherein each recess has a diameter of 0.5 to 2.0 mm, wherein a density of the recesses on a groove surface of the groove is 13 to 400 pieces/cm2 [machine translation] and wherein FIGURE 3A shows a recess being located on a boundary between the bottom surface and a wall surface so as to cross the boundary and extend over both the bottom surface and the wall surface and/or (2) Buresh teaches providing a tire having a rubber tread comprising grooves such that dimples 132 are formed on a bottom surface and wall surfaces of a groove to improve mud evacuation wherein, for example, each dimple is shaped as an inverted cone with an included angle of 90 degrees, depth dc (dimple) = 0.75 mm and pitch pc (dimples) = 7.5 mm and wherein FIGURE 6E illustrates arranging dimples on the groove surface of the groove such that one wall surface comprises one row of dimples, the bottom surface comprises two rows of dimples and a row of dimples is formed on a “boundary” between the one wall surface and the bottom surface so as to cross the boundary and extend over both the one wall surface and the bottom surface (the boundary being located in the middle of a curved concave surface). It is noted that claims 17 and 21 fail to describe the shape and/or size of the first region and second region and thereby fail to require an arrangement of dimples different from that suggested by Japan 304 and/or Buresh. No unexpected results over Tsihlas et al have been shown. The claimed invention has not been compared with Tsihlas et al’s retreaded tire.
With respect to Japan 304, attention is directed to the following FIGURE:
PNG
media_image1.png
586
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above FIGURE was created by the examiner and illustrates 13 dimples being arranged in one square centimeter wherein each dimple has a diameter of 2 mm. This FIGURE is consistent with Japan 304’s teaching that each recess (dimple) has a diameter of 0.5 to 2.0 mm, wherein a density of the recesses (dimples) on a groove surface of the groove is 13 to 400 pieces/cm2 [machine translation]. As can be seen from the above FIGURE, the spacing between recesses (dimples) is 2 mm. When a hemispherical recess (dimple) has an outer diameter of 2 mm, then the recess (dimple) has a depth of 1 mm.
As to claims 5 and 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Tsihlas et al’s retreaded pneumatic tire such that:
each of the dimples has a maximum diameter from 1 to 5 mm and
a maximum depth from 1 to 3 mm [claim 5],
the dimples are arranged at an interval from 2 to 5 mm [claim 7]
since Japan 304 teaches providing the hemispherical recesses (dimples) such that each recess has a diameter of 0.5 to 2.0 mm and a density of the recesses on a groove surface of the groove is 13 to 400 pieces/cm2. From these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that Japan 304 teaches or at least renders obvious diameter = 2 mm, depth = 1 mm and interval = 2 mm.
As to claim 6, Buresh teaches a dimple being an inverted cone defining an included angle of 90 degrees. Thus, Buresh teaches a taper angle of 45 degrees.
As to claims 6 and 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Tsihlas et al’s retreaded pneumatic tire such that:
each of the dimples has a concave conical portion having a taper angle of
60 degrees or less with respect to a depth direction of the each of the dimples [claim 6],
the concave conical portion forms an inner space having a cylindrical or a truncated cone shape, the inner space has an inner wall having the taper angle and a bottom surface, and an angle between the bottom surface and the inner wall is from 90 to 120 degrees in a cross section of each of the dimples along a depth direction thereof [claim 18]
since (1) as discussed above, Japan 304 and/or Buresh suggest providing Tsihlas et al’s retreaded tire with dimples and (2) (A) Tsihlas et al teaches providing indentations (dimples) in a groove surface of the groove wherein the indentation (dimple) may be conical [page 17 line 9] and wherein the indentation (dimple) may have a flat bottom, FIGURE 13 showing angle between the flat bottom and wall surface of the indentation (dimple) being about 120 degrees and/or (B) Hayashi et al teaches forming circular dimples (each having a flat bottom) in a tire surface to promote heat radiation from the tire to the atmosphere wherein diameter Di of the dimple is, for example, 2 mm and depth De of the dimple is 1 mm to 7 mm and taper angle = 20-80 degrees with respect to radial direction (angle alpha = 10 to 70 degrees with respect to tire surface).
As to claim 11, the claimed second lateral grooves read on both end open shoulder lateral grooves [FIGURES 3-4, Tsihlas et al].
6) Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsihlas et al (WO 2014/145894) in view of Japan 304 (JP 60-036304 U) and/or Buresh (US 2011/0125465) and optionally further in view of Hayashi et al (US 2011/0030862) as applied above and further in view of Tansei et al (US 4,676,290).
As to claims 9 and 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Tsihlas et al’s retreaded pneumatic tire such that:
the first shoulder circumferential groove is connected with a plurality of first shoulder lateral grooves arranged in the tire circumferential direction and each extending in a tire axial direction on a ground contacting surface of the tread rubber, and in a 1-pitch area between two first shoulder lateral grooves adjacent to each other, the groove surface is provided with one or more rows each having 2 to 20 dimples arranged in the tire circumferential direction [claim 9],
the groove surface includes a pair of groove wail surfaces, and in the 1-pitch area, one of the groove wall surfaces is provided with one or more rows each having 1 to 5 dimples arranged in a tire radial direction [claim 10],
since (1) Tsihlas et al teaches a retreaded tire for a truck wherein, as discussed above, Japan 304 and/or Buresh suggest providing Tsihlas et al’s retreaded tire with dimples, (2) Tansei et al discloses a known pneumatic tire (tire size 10.00R20) for a truck having a tread comprising blocks delimited by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves wherein the blocks have a length, for example, of 50 mm (a block defining 1-pitch area between lateral grooves) [FIGURE 1A, TABLE on column 4] and (3) Japan 304 teaches providing the recesses (dimples) such that each recess has a diameter of 0.5 to 2.0 mm and a density of the recesses on a groove surface of the groove is 13 to 400 pieces/cm2 or (B) Buresh teaches providing the dimples such that, for example, each dimple is shaped as an inverted cone with an included angle of 90 degrees, depth dc (dimple) = 0.75 mm and pitch pc (dimples) = 7.5 mm.
7) Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsihlas et al (WO 2014/145894) in view of Japan 304 (JP 60-036304 U) and/or Buresh (US 2011/0125465) and optionally further in view of Hayashi et al (US 2011/0030862) as applied above and further in view of de Barsy (US 2006/0137790).
As to claims 11 and 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Tsihlas et al’s retreaded pneumatic tire such that:
the tread rubber includes a ground contacting surface extending axially inward from the first tread edge and a first buttress surface extending inward in a tire radial direction from the first tread edge, the tread rubber is provided with a plurality of second shoulder lateral grooves each opening at the ground contacting surface and the first buttress surface, and on the first buttress surface, each of the second shoulder lateral grooves has a groove width of 50% or less of a 1-pitch length between two second shoulder lateral grooves adjacent to each other [claim 11],
the groove width of each of the second shoulder lateral grooves is from 15% to 30% of the 1-pitch length [claim 19]
since de Barsy teaches providing a pneumatic tire such that the tire comprises shoulder lateral grooves at a buttress surface so that there is less irregular wear at high mileage and to increase durability (lower heat generation and temperature at shoulder) wherein width of the shoulder lateral grooves > 4 mm, depth of the shoulder lateral grooves is 25 to 35% of the depth of the circumferential grooves, FIGURE 2 illustrating the pitch of the shoulder lateral grooves relative to width of shoulder lateral grooves [FIGURES 1-2].
8) Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsihlas et al (WO 2014/145894) in view of Japan 304 (JP 60-036304 U) and/or Buresh (US 2011/0125465) and optionally further in view of Hayashi et al (US 2011/0030862) and further in view of de Barsy (US 2006/0137790) as applied above and further in view of Neuber et al (US 2017/0282650).
As to claims 13 and 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Tsihlas et al’s retreaded pneumatic tire such that the first buttress surface includes a concave arc surface concave toward a tire equator in a lateral cross section of the tread rubber passing through a tire rotational axis [claim 13], the concave are surface has a radius of curvature of 20 mm or more and 120 mm or less in the lateral cross section [claim 14] since Neuber et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire comprising a tread having a curved concave buttress surface such that the curved concave buttress surface has a radius RA = 15 to 100 mm so as to improve both rolling resistance and wear and thus long time performance of the tire [FIGURES 1-3, paragraphs 10, 14, 23].
9) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsihlas et al (WO 2014/145894) in view of Japan 304 (JP 60-036304 U) and/or Buresh (US 2011/0125465) and optionally further in view of Hayashi et al (US 2011/0030862) and further in view of de Barsy (US 2006/0137790) and Neuber et al (US 2017/0282650) as applied above and further in view of Japan 022 (JP 05-319022).
As to claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Tsihlas et al’s retreaded pneumatic tire such that the first buttress surface further includes an inclined surface and a plane, the inclined surface extends radially inward from the first tread edge at an angle from 40 to 50 degrees with respect to the tire radial direction, the plane is continuous with the inclined surface on a radially inner side thereof, and the concave arc surface is continuous with the plane on a radially manner side thereof since Japan 022 teaches providing a pneumatic tire comprising a tread such that an inclined surface 13 extends from the ground contact edge and is inclined at an angle theta = 30 to 50 degrees with respect to the radial direction to improve snow performance, the inclined surface being continuous with a plane and the plane being continuous with a concave surface [FIGURES 2, 7, machine translation].
Remarks
10) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 7-8-25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 22 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election in the replay filed on 7-8-25 being treated as an election without traverse as explained above.
11) No claim is allowed.
12) 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.
13) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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 B Smith (Whatley) can be reached on 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
November 15, 2025