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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 30, 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rittweger (DE 102016218487, of record) and optionally in view of Debordeaux (FR 3063455, of record).
Rittweger is directed to a tire construction comprising a plurality of spaced large pattern areas separated by smooth surfaces, wherein respective areas include at least one portion 5a (claimed first pattern area) defined by protrusions and recesses and at least one portion 5b (claimed second pattern area) defined by protrusions and recesses. More particularly, the specific arrangement of protrusions and recesses in portions 5a are designed to provide significantly higher light reflecting areas, as compared to portions 5b. This corresponds with first and second pattern areas having different luminance. Modified Figure 1 is included below to illustrate how the components of Rittweger satisfy the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
679
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also, regarding claim 1, a fair reading of Rittweger suggests the general inclusion of multiple decorative bodies, wherein respective decorative bodies include first surface structured surface elements and second surface structured elements to achieve different light reflecting properties. It is further evident from Figures 1 and 2 that respective decorative bodies can have the same or different shape and furthermore, the actual shape of respective decorative bodies is not limited. One of ordinary skill in the art would have equally found it obvious to use any number of shapes or geometries for the portions 5a and 5b that make up respective decorative bodies. Included within this is the selection on portions 5a and 5b that have the same geometry and thus are symmetrical. It is emphasized that portions 5a and 5b are not limited to a single shape or geometry, as evidenced by Figures 1 and 2. The particular selection of the shapes of portions 5a and 5b appear to correspond with the desired aesthetic effect and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed arrangement. Debordeaux is optionally cited to evidence the known manufacture of decorative bodies formed with symmetrical regions having different properties (Figures 1 and 2).
Lastly, in terms of the claim language pertaining to different sizes and shapes, any geometric shape can be arbitrarily divided into regions having different sizes and different shapes. For example, a rectangle can be divided into a square and rectangle in which case a first plurality of regions (of a first pattern area) having different sizes and shapes and a second plurality of regions (of a second pattern area) having different sizes and shapes would be present.
PNG
media_image2.png
256
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, the large pattern areas identified above are radially stacked.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, the radially innermost large pattern area identified above, for example, includes a plurality of portions 5a.
Regarding claim 5, the exact shape or geometry of respective decorative portions is not limited and appears to correspond with the desired aesthetic effect. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include decorative bodies having any number of shapes, logos, designs, indica, or geometries, including that required by the claimed invention.
Conclusion
5. 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 November 3, 2025