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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 11/06/2025 have been accepted. Claims 17, 20, 25, 32 are amended. Claims 33-34 are new. Claims 18 and 19 are canceled. Claims 17 and 20-34 are pending. It is noted that the filed claim set states that claim 26 is amended, however each of the amendments made were previously made in the claim set filed 7/25/2025 such that claim 26 does not have any changes from the previously filed claims. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcomes all of the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 8/6/2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 appears to have an inadvertent line break in lines 1-2 which separate the “pneumatic vehicle” from “tire”. This line break should be removed to be clear that Applicant is claimed a “pneumatic vehicle tire”.
Claim 32 line 5 recites “…transverse grooves and each provided with a groove base…”. The underlined portion is grammatically incorrect and should be corrected, to something such as: “…transverse grooves are each provided with a groove base…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 34 is 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.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the width bPR" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be examined as if “…a width bPR of the shoulder-side tread rib”.
Claim 34 recites that the width of the shoulder-side tread rib is “determined on the outer surface of the tread rib and related to the plane E and projected in the axial direction”. First, “plane E” is lacking antecedent basis such that it is not clear what is being referred. Secondly, it is not clear what the relationship between the width of the rib and that of the plane, as it is not clear how they are “related” to each other. Is this plane “E” along the direction of the groove, or is there some other relation between the plane and the width of the rib. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. The claim will be examined as if the width of the shoulder-side tread rib is merely taken in the axial direction.
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.
Figures: The examiner provides illustrations from the prior art with additional annotations as needed to facilitate discussion of the claim elements. Moreover, it is held that guidance as provided by the figures is sufficient to enable public possession of an inventive concept. That is, an enabling picture may be used to reject claims directed to an article to include: anticipating claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.
Claims 17-22, 26-29, 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi (US2010/0224296A1, of record) in view of Suzuki (US2005/0103414A1, of record), in view of Matsushita (JPS62241712A, of record), in view of Han (KR102217976B1, of record), and in view of Enomoto (JP2017193222A, of record).
Regarding claim 17, Dobashi discloses a pneumatic vehicle tire [title] comprising
a tread with a shoulder-side tread rib delimited by a circumferential groove with an outer tread-rib surface lying in the tread periphery (the tread of the tire is shown in Figs. 1 or 2, for example. The area to the right of the circumferential groove “9” in Fig. 1 may be considered the shoulder-side tread rib, with grooves/sipes repeating on the tread surface. Additionally, at least two circumferential grooves may be provided [0049] further dividing the tread portion as shown in Fig. 2 which has 4 circumferential grooves),
the shoulder-side tread rib having a plurality of parallel tread ribs in plan view (the plurality of parallel tread ribs is construed to mean that the same pattern is repeated in the circumferential direction for the shoulder side of the tread. As in Figs. 1 or 2, for example, the shoulder tread pattern is repeated and the groove/sipe arrangement in the rightmost rib in the figures is clearly parallel to the repeating pattern),
the circumferential groove has transverse grooves that terminate and provided with a groove base and an end flank which adjoins the groove base on the inside of the tread and continues to the outer surface of the tread rib surface (as in Figs. 1-2, the rightmost portion of the shoulder rib has a transverse groove that extends from beyond a tread edge of the tire and terminates within the land portion without reaching a circumferential groove. And as grooves in a tread, the transverse groove would necessarily possess a groove bottom and edge flanks to adjoin the radially innermost portion of the groove with the tread surface)
the transverse grooves are provided, in each of which is a channel-incision combination (K) emanating from the outer surface of the profile rib and which opens out over the end flank into the respective transverse groove within the shoulder-side profile rib (as in Dobashi, the transverse groove on the rightmost portion of the tread clearly has a sipe, synonymous with incision, connected to the transverse groove extending from the tread edge. Sipes/incisions are well known within the art to be depicted in Figures as single lines on tread patterns. The combination of the transverse groove and the incision is considered the channel-incision combination).
Dobashi does not directly disclose the width of its incision being from 0.4mm to 1.2mm. However, sipes/incisions in the art of tires are well known to have widths within the claimed range. Suzuki teaches a pneumatic tire wherein “the sipe is, as well known in the art, a cut or a very narrow groove having a groove width of less than 1.5mm, usually less than 1.0mm” [0013]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sipe/incision of Dobashi to have the conventional width of sipes as suggested in Suzuki, as such widths are conventionally well known in the art as stated by Suzuki [0012]. And additionally, so as to obtain the conventional benefits associated with properly sized sipes, such as providing additional steering stability [Suzuki, 0012]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Dobashi does not explicitly disclose a tubular channel extending from the profile rib outer surface. Matsushita discloses a pneumatic tire with a tread that is associated with drainage performance [middle of pg. 1 of machine translation], which is of similar endeavor as Dobashi [0057]. Matsushita discloses a variety of tread patterns, such as Fig. 8, wherein the tread comprises siping present on the tread surface. The bottom left figure is from Fig. 8, wherein the channel opening “hole” is shown by the circle at the top of the tread. The sipes then move towards the axial outside compared to the channel opening, as in Fig. 8. These channels are present on the shoulder sections of the tread. Fig. 5 is the bottom right figure below. It shows that Matsushita’s tread possesses an “L-shaped” channel. One leg of the “L” is from the opening of the channel at the tread surface, and the other leg extends to the end of the sipe.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
317
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
478
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the incision of Dobashi so as to have the channels as suggested by Matsushita. One would have been motivated in order to improve the drainage performance of the tire [middle of pg. 1 of machine translation of Matsushita]. In making such a modification, the sipe of Dobashi would have a channel opening at an axially innermost portion of the sipe and would have the channel extending axially outwards towards the end of the sipe, which would then necessarily lead into the associated transverse groove as the sipe and transverse groove of Dobashi are connected.
Dobashi in view of Matsushita does not directly disclose the channel having an end section which tapers towards the end flank and has the channel end section arranged in a truncated cone. Han discloses a pneumatic tire which has channel openings on the tread surface in which the channels may be situated to move axially inwards or outwards [see Fig. 15]. The channels may be situated in an L-shape [see Fig. 20]. The channel may be made so as to see a decrease in thickness moving from a channel opening to a channel closing [see Fig. 24], wherein the decreased thickness would be considered a taper. And as there may be a decrease in thickness towards the end, the channel end section would appear as a truncated cone because the width could be decreasing continuously in this section, appearing substantially similar to the cone shape as in Instant Fig. 6.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to apply the decreasing thickness (taper) of Han to the tire of Dobashi. One would have been motivated in order to have better control over the properties and so as to more easily transfer water so that a safe vehicle can be operated [0281-0282].
Dobashi does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the channel outside the channel end section having a diameter of 240% to 260% of the width of the incision. Enomoto teaches a pneumatic tire with similar channels as in Matsushita and Han. The tread has opening holes at the tread surface connected to sipes, where the opening holes lead to channels that extend [see Figs. 3 and 4]. The maximum width WVh of the hole portion is preferably set to be 2 to 5 times the width of the sipe [pg. 2 of machine translation]. This would equate to the diameter being from 200% to 500% of the width of the incision, overlapping with the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the channel to have the width as suggested by Enomoto. One would have been motivated to obtain a sufficient water absorbing effect, improving braking performance and steering stability [Enomoto, pg. 2 of machine translation].
Regarding claim 20, modified Dobashi makes obvious the channel end section on the end flank having a diameter of 95% to 105% of the width of the incision (as stated above, the opening of the channel flank may have a width that is from 2 to 5 times the width of the incision, as suggested by Enomoto. And as suggested by Han, the channel sees a decrease in width moving from the channel opening at the tread surface to the channel end. Han does not set a lower width range for this value, and as such, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to work within these ranges so as to obtain the preferred diameter of its channel opening, so as to optimize the drainage of water through the channel from the channel opening through the channel end section, thereby improving the tire performance. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 21, modified Dobashi makes obvious a tire wherein the channel end section along with the central channel section forms the longer L-bar of the L-shape and the channel section extending from the outer surface forms the shorts L-bar (the channel sections may be defined as required in the claim. For example, based on the L-shape channel as from Fig. 5 of Matsushita, the section of the channel extending from the tread surface may be considered the outer channel section. The portion of the channel of Matsushita which extends along the extension of the sipe may be considered to have the other two sections of the channel (central channel section and channel end section). It being noted, the claim as written does not require any further specific structural differences between the sections of the channel, such as length or diameter, so as to differentiate between the channel sections. As such, any portion of the channel may be defined as such, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim).
Regarding claim 22, modified Dobashi makes obvious a tire wherein the central channel section and the channel end section form a common rotational body with a main axis (referring to the channel as suggested by Matsushita, the radially inner portion of the “L” bar may be considered to contain the central and channel end section of the channel. As these are both in line with each other, as in Fig. 5 of Matsushita, they would clearly have a common rotational body. It being noted, the claim as written does not require any further specific structural differences between the sections of the channel, such as length or diameter, so as to differentiate between the channel sections. As such, any portion of the channel may be defined as such, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim).
Regarding claim 26, modified Dobashi makes obvious a tire wherein a plane has an angle from 0 to 10deg, and wherein straight lines are formed to the angle and to the radial direction (as in Fig. 1-2, the transverse groove/sipe combination extends at an angle of approximately 9 to 10 degrees, as evidenced by the figures. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125. As with respect to the straight lines, it is noted that the claim only requires that the lines are formed and does not require any associated structure of the grooves. As “arbitrary lines”, the lines may clearly be drawn so as to be formed about any surface, thus necessarily satisfying the claim. Further, as the top of the incision in Dobashi and the channel of Matsushita extend straightly and evenly downwards, it would be expected that the channel would be symmetrical about either drawn line g1 extending at the angle and g2 extending in a radial direction).
Regarding claim 27, modified Dobashi makes obvious a tire wherein the plane traverses the transverse grooves in its longitudinal extension (as in Figs. 1-2, the grooves and sipes clearly extend along the same direction, such that the associated plane would similarly extend in the same direction).
Regarding claim 28, modified Dobashi makes obvious a tire wherein radially inner end flank which runs in the shape of a circular arc without kinks and a radially outer end flank section at an angle from 0 to 10deg (Matsushita provides views of the groove connection from the outlet of the channel to the associated groove. Matsushita’s channels may exit into a transverse groove, such as shown in Fig. 1 wherein the sipe and the channel extend into the transverse groove, such that the teachings of Matsushita are reasonably pertinent to the instant application. Matsushita has, as shown in Fig. 3, the grooves formed with an arc-shaped V-bottom with groove walls at an angle θ3 which is approximately 10deg [bottom of pg. 1 of machine translation]. The arc shaped bottom would be considered the radially inner end flank, which clearly runs in a circular arc, and the groove walls at the angle θ3 would be considered the radially outer end flank section overlapping with the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 29, modified Dobashi makes obvious a tire wherein the transverse groove has a main section running inside and outside the ground contact area (as in Figs. 1-2 of Dobashi, the transverse groove crosses a ground contact tread edge, which is signified by the vertical line near the rightmost portion of the tread) and a tapering section connecting with the incision which continuously narrows (as in Figs. 1-2 of Dobashi, the transverse groove has a decreasing width portion moving towards and connecting to the incision. This portion of the groove with decreasing width is considered the tapering section).
Regarding claim 33, modified Dobashi makes obvious a tire wherein the end flank of the tubular channel diverts water into the transverse groove (it is noted that this limitation is construed as intended use, as “diverts water” is not part of the structure of the tire nor does it necessarily impart structural limitations onto the claimed tire. However, it is noted that, as in the rejection of claim 17 above, because the end flank and tubular structure is substantially similar to that of the instant application, the end flank during operation of the tire during wet conditions would result in diverting water into the transverse groove. The arrangement of the channel/end flank would necessarily result in water behaving as such. "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 34, modified Dobashi makes obvious a ground contact transverse groove in a ground contact area having a length of 50-60% of the width of the shoulder side tread rib measured in the axial direction (Dobashi shows its transverse groove portion extending across the tread end into the ground contact area [see Figs. 1+]. Dobashi does not explicitly give the axial length of this ground contacting portion of the transverse groove compared to that of the width of the shoulder rib, although Dobashi does show that the transverse groove may extend across the rib in varying amounts [see Figs. 1-2]. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV). Additionally, it is noted that Applicant has not provided a showing of unexpected results nor criticality as to the claimed range).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi (US2010/0224296A1, of record) in view of Suzuki (US2005/0103414A1, of record), in view of Matsushita (JPS62241712A, of record), in view of Han (KR102217976B1, of record), and in view of Enomoto (JP2017193222A, of record), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Brockmann (WO2015185236A1, of record).
Regarding claim 23, modified Dobashi doesn’t explicitly disclose the common rotational body having a depth of 55-65% of the maximum depth of the transverse groove. Brockmann is tied to a pneumatic tire with sipes on the tread surface with “holes” present on the tread surface leading into grooves “6’” and “6”” which transfer water from the tread surface to the adjacent grooves [see Figs. 1 and 2]. The tire of Brockmann is of similar endeavor as that of the instant application as it deals with channels below the tread surface emptying into grooves. The depth of these channel grooves “6’” is shown to be T1 as in Fig. 2, while the total depth of the sipe is T and the total depth of the tread is TP [bottom of pg. 4 of machine translation]. The depth of the sipe is at least 70% of the tread depth Tp, and the depth of the channel/groove section is preferably from 50% to 90% of the depth T [bottom of pg. 4 of machine translation]. Within these suggested ranges, there are numerous embodiments that suggest the claimed ranges. For example, when the depth of the sipe is equal to the depth of the tread (as suggested by the ranges), and the depth of the channel is 55% of the depth of the tread, then the associated depth of the channel end section and central channel section would be 55% and within the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the channels to have the depths as suggested by Brockmann. One would have been motivated in order to improve the drainage of the channels over the life of the tire [pg. 3 of machine translation] and improve driving under wintry conditions [pg. 4 of machine translation].
Regarding claim 24, modified Dobashi makes obvious a tire wherein the length of the channel end section is from 30-70% of the central channel section (as in the rejections of claim 21 above, the claims do not explicitly require a difference in diameter between the channel end section and the middle channel section so as to require structural differences between the two regions. As such, the delineation point between the two sections may be set arbitrarily, such that the channel end section may be readily defined to have a length of 50% of the length of the bottom “L-shape” while the middle channel section encompasses the rest of the bottom “L-shape”).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi (US2010/0224296A1, of record) in view of Suzuki (US2005/0103414A1, of record), in view of Matsushita (JPS62241712A, of record), in view of Han (KR102217976B1, of record), and in view of Enomoto (JP2017193222A, of record), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Maeda (US2018/0281528A1, of record).
Regarding claim 25, Dobashi does not explicitly disclose the hole circle of the radially outer channel opening being from 2 to 8mm from the outer circumferential groove. However, Dobashi does disclose a variety of embodiments, wherein the number of circumferential grooves can range from 1 [as shown in Fig. 1] to at least 4 [as in Fig. 2], and may include only 2 circumferential grooves [0049]. Maeda is tied to a pneumatic tire with ending transverse grooves in the shoulder regions [see Fig. 1]. The shortest distance from the ending shoulder grooves to the circumferential groove “13” is “S4” [shown in Fig. 4], and it is set to be from 0.75 to 0.85 times the groove width of the first main groove [0071]. The groove width of “W1” is set to be from 5 to 15mm [0050], which is of conventional groove widths typically found in pneumatic tires. The associated distance to the outermost circumferential groove suggested would thus be from 3.75mm to 12.75mm, overlapping with the claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Dobashi so as to have the ending transverse grooves/sipes terminate within the ranges suggested by Maeda. One would have found it obvious to apply the circumferential groove widths as suggested by Maeda because Dobashi is silent as to such widths, and one would have been motivated in order to balance grip performance and wet performance [0050]. And one would have been motivated to set the shortest distance as such in order to suppress uneven wear in the shoulder land portion [0071]. It being noted, that as in the rejection of claim 17 above, the hole circle of the channel opening would be located at the radially innermost portion of the transverse groove/sipe, such that the hole opening would overlap with the claimed range of 2 to 8mm. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi (US2010/0224296A1, of record) in view of Suzuki (US2005/0103414A1, of record), in view of Matsushita (JPS62241712A, of record), in view of Han (KR102217976B1, of record), and in view of Enomoto (JP2017193222A, of record), as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Mori (US4884607A, of record).
Regarding claims 30-31, Dobashi does not explicitly define the width of the transverse grooves of the outer surface of the tread rib. As such, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to conventional examples of transverse groove widths to apply to the tire of Dobashi with a reasonable expectation of success. Mori teaches a pneumatic tire which has circumferential extending groove and transverse extending grooves. The transverse extending grooves are stated to conventionally be from 3 to 7mm depending upon the groove size of the main grooves [Col 3 L14-28]. Because Dobashi is silent as to the widths of its grooves, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to set the width of its transverse ending groove to be from 3 to 7mm as suggested by Mori in order to obtain the conventional benefits associated with groove sizes such as sufficient drainage and stability of the tread. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the alternate, claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi (US2010/0224296A1, of record) in view of Suzuki (US2005/0103414A1, of record), in view of Matsushita (JPS62241712A, of record), in view of Han (KR102217976B1, of record), and in view of Enomoto (JP2017193222A, of record), as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of either Inoue (US2014/0283967A1) or Ueyama (US2020/0223261A1).
Regarding claim 34, Inoue discloses a tire with a tread with a transverse groove located inside of the ground contact area of the tire [see Fig. 1, “23”]. The transverse groove has an axial length L8 from 50-80% of the axial width of its respective land portion [0089]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the axial length of the transverse groove of Dobashi to be as suggested by Inoue. One would have been motivated so as to balance steering stability, ride comfort, and noise performance [0085-0088, 0106-0107].
In the alternate, Ueyama discloses a tire with a tread with a transverse groove which travels across the tread end through the ground contact area and is connected with a sipe [see Fig. 1]. The axial length of the outer lateral groove “5” is 40-60% of the width of its respective land portion [0010]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the axial length of the transverse groove of Dobashi to be as suggested by Ueyama. One would have been motivated so as to balance stiffness, ride comfort, steering stability and noise performance [0043].
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi (US2010/0224296A1, of record) in view of Suzuki (US2005/0103414A1, of record), in view of Matsushita (JPS62241712A, of record), in view of Han (KR102217976B1, of record), and in view of Enomoto (JP2017193222A, of record).
Regarding claim 32, Dobashi discloses a pneumatic vehicle tire [title] comprising
a tread with at least one shoulder-side tread rib delimited by a circumferential groove with an outer tread-rib surface lying in the tread periphery (the tread of the tire is shown in Figs. 1 or 2, for example. The area to the right of the circumferential groove “9” in Fig. 1 may be considered the shoulder-side tread rib, with grooves/sipes repeating on the tread surface. Additionally, at least two circumferential grooves may be provided [0049] further dividing the tread portion as shown in Fig. 2 which has 4 circumferential grooves),
the at least one shoulder-side tread rib having a plurality of parallel tread ribs in plan view (the plurality of parallel tread ribs is construed to mean that the same pattern is repeated in the circumferential direction for the shoulder side of the tread. As in Figs. 1 or 2, for example, the shoulder tread pattern is repeated and the groove/sipe arrangement in the rightmost rib in the figures is clearly parallel to the repeating pattern),
the circumferential groove has transverse grooves that terminate and provided with a groove base and an end flank which adjoins the groove base on the inside of the tread and continues to the outer surface of the tread rib surface (as in Figs. 1-2, the rightmost portion of the shoulder rib has a transverse groove that extends from beyond a tread edge of the tire and terminates within the land portion without reaching a circumferential groove. And as grooves in a tread, the transverse groove would necessarily possess a groove bottom and edge flanks to adjoin the radially innermost portion of the groove with the tread surface)
the transverse grooves are provided, in each of which is a channel-incision combination (K) emanating from the outer surface of the profile rib and which opens out over the end flank into the respective transverse groove within the shoulder-side profile rib (as in Dobashi, the transverse groove on the rightmost portion of the tread clearly has a sipe, synonymous with incision, connected to the transverse groove extending from the tread edge. Sipes/incisions are well known within the art to be depicted in Figures as single lines on tread patterns. The combination of the transverse groove and the incision is considered the channel-incision combination).
Dobashi does not directly disclose the width of its incision being from 0.4mm to 1.2mm. However, sipes/incisions in the art of tires are well known to have widths within the claimed range. Suzuki teaches a pneumatic tire wherein “the sipe is, as well known in the art, a cut or a very narrow groove having a groove width of less than 1.5mm, usually less than 1.0mm” [0013]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sipe/incision of Dobashi to have the conventional width of sipes as suggested in Suzuki, as such widths are conventionally well known in the art as stated by Suzuki [0012]. And additionally, so as to obtain the conventional benefits associated with properly sized sipes, such as providing additional steering stability [Suzuki, 0012]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Dobashi does not explicitly disclose a tubular channel extending from the profile rib outer surface. Matsushita discloses a pneumatic tire with a tread that is associated with drainage performance [middle of pg. 1 of machine translation], which is of similar endeavor as Dobashi [0057]. Matsushita discloses a variety of tread patterns, such as Fig. 8, wherein the tread comprises siping present on the tread surface. The bottom left figure is from Fig. 8, wherein the channel opening “hole” is shown by the circle at the top of the tread. The sipes then move towards the axial outside compared to the channel opening, as in Fig. 8. These channels are present on the shoulder sections of the tread. Fig. 5 is the bottom right figure below. It shows that Matsushita’s tread possesses an “L-shaped” channel. One leg of the “L” is from the opening of the channel at the tread surface, and the other leg extends to the end of the sipe.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
317
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
478
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the incision of Dobashi so as to have the channels as suggested by Matsushita. One would have been motivated in order to improve the drainage performance of the tire [middle of pg. 1 of machine translation of Matsushita]. In making such a modification, the sipe of Dobashi would have a channel opening at an axially innermost portion of the sipe and would have the channel extending axially outwards towards the end of the sipe, which would then necessarily lead into the associated transverse groove as the sipe and transverse groove of Dobashi are connected.
Dobashi in view of Matsushita does not directly disclose the channel having an end section which tapers towards the end flank. Han discloses a pneumatic tire which has channel openings on the tread surface in which the channels may be situated to move axially inwards or outwards [see Fig. 15]. The channels may be situated in an L-shape [see Fig. 20]. The channel may be made so as to see a decrease in thickness moving from a channel opening to a channel closing [see Fig. 24], wherein the decreased thickness would be considered a taper.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to apply the decreasing thickness (taper) of Han to the tire of Dobashi. One would have been motivated in order to have better control over the properties and so as to more easily transfer water so that a safe vehicle can be operated [0281-0282].
Dobashi does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the channel outside the channel end section having a diameter of 170% to 300% of the width of the incision. Enomoto teaches a pneumatic tire with similar channels as in Matsushita and Han. The tread has opening holes at the tread surface connected to sipes, where the opening holes lead to channels that extend [see Figs. 3 and 4]. The maximum width WVh of the hole portion is preferably set to be 2 to 5 times the width of the sipe [pg. 2 of machine translation]. This would equate to the diameter being from 200% to 500% of the width of the incision, overlapping with the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the channel to have the width as suggested by Enomoto. One would have been motivated to obtain a sufficient water absorbing effect, improving braking performance and steering stability [Enomoto, pg. 2 of machine translation].
Modified Dobashi makes obvious the channel end section having the shape of a truncated cone (as in the decreasing width as suggested by Han above and in Fig. 24 of Han, the channel end section would appear as a truncated cone because the width could be decreasing continuously in this section. This would appear substantially similar to the cone shape as in Instant Fig. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 of their Remarks that the amended features of claim 17 result in beneficial properties, and that the cited references do not teach or suggest all of the claim limitations.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant makes no attempt to point to specific aspects of the combination which are allegedly missing or not suggested. And as each of the new features in amended claim 17 were previously considered and rejected, via the limitations from claims 18 and 19 which have been moved up into the independent claim, the new features are made obvious by the combination in view of Enomoto as explained for the reasons above. Therefore, these arguments are found wholly unconvincing.
In response to applicant's argument that the invention provides beneficial performance of the tire, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights