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 2/5/2026 have been accepted. Claims 1 and 5 are amended. There are no new or canceled claims. Claims 1-11 are pending.
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 1-2, 5, 8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US2018/0141386A1, of record) in view of Berthier (WO2019229371 of record, citing to English Equivalent US2021/0229502A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Zhu teaches a tire for a heavy-duty vehicle (tire for a heavy truck tire [title, 0007]), comprising a tread (tread “2”) intended to come into contact with the ground via a tread surface (tread having a ground-engaging contact surface [0007]), comprising five cuts delimiting raised elements (as in Figs. 3-6, there are 5 total circumferential cuts, “3” through “7” [0020]),
at least three cuts being a circumferential complex cut with a midline extending in a circumferential direction of the tire (as in Figs. 3-6, each of the grooves “3”, “5”, and “7” are considered to be partially hidden grooves [0026], which is synonymous with “complex grooves” within the art. Additionally, these clearly extend in the circumferential direction), and comprising, when the tire is new, an alternation of external cavities and internal cavities (each of the partially hidden grooves comprise open portions “31”, “51”, and “71”, which alternate with hidden portions [0027], wherein the open portions are the external cavities, and the hidden portions are the internal cavities), two consecutive cavities, respectively an external and internal cavity, being connected to each other by a connecting channel (water flows from the open groove portion to the respective connected duct such that water is efficiently conveyed out of the contact patch [0024-0027]), wherein each of the at least three circumferential complex cuts are separated from each other by non-complex cuts (as in Figs. 3-6, the complex cuts are clearly separated by intermediate grooves “4” and “6” which do not have the alternating cavities),
wherein circumferential walls that define the external cavities are parallel to each other in a central portion and then taper axially and circumferentially towards each other as they approach respective circumferential ends of each external cavity, and the parallel portions of the wall extending over a greater circumferential extent that the tapered portions (as in Figs. 3 and 6 which show a viewpoint of the tread pattern, each of the external openings of the grooves “3”, “5”, and “7” are tapered axially and circumferentially towards each other such that the opening width decreases moving circumferential towards either end of the opening. It being noted that as the change in width of the external cavities is not instantaneous but is a gradual change, this taper would necessarily occur at least partially in both the axial and circumferential directions. It being noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of tapering “circumferentially”, there needs to simply be a taper at least partially in the circumferential direction, which would necessarily be present when the width gradually increases/decreases), the circumferential walls that define the external cavities leading into circumferential walls that define sipes connecting the internal cavities to the tread surface (as in Figs. 3 and 6, the circumferential walls of the external openings of the groove as open clearly lead directly into sipes as immediately obvious from a simple observation of the figures. And as previously stated, the “hidden” portions of the partially hidden grooves are considered the internal cavities, where the opening tread sipe is clearly seen in Figs. 3 and 6. And further, the middle portions of each of the external cavities are clearly parallel to each other, with the tapered portions being located on either circumferential end of the external portion. And as clear from only a simple observation of the figures, the central parallel portion is clearly longer in the circumferential direction compared to the tapered portions length in the circumferential direction. 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),
wherein each internal cavity has a radial outer wall and a radial inner wall each having a length measured along the midline on a radially external section of the internal cavity (the internal cavities are shown in Fig. 4 for example, wherein a outer wall is considered a top portion of the widened portion and the bottom wall is considered the radially innermost portion of the cavity. It being noted that the claim only requires for each of the walls to have “a length” measured a certain way and that it is not explicitly required for these lengths to be the same under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. As such, any internal cavity, including that of Zhu’s depicted, would clearly satisfy the claimed limitation wherein the radially outer and inner walls each have a length measured a certain way).
each external cavity having a length measured along the midline on the tread surface of the tire when new and free (in Fig. 6, the section length “L” may be set to 16.5mm, which corresponds to half of the pitch of the tread for all ribs except the shoulder ribs [0033]. Because the partially hidden grooves of Zhu have alternating external/internal cavities which are of substantially the same length [see Fig. 6], and because this length “L” is half of the pitch, the length of the external cavity as in Fig. 6 would also be set at 16.5mm. See also the length “L” in the bottom of Fig. 6, which is of the exact same circumferential length as the external openings).
The tire of Zhu may be used with a heavy-duty truck tire as stated above. The specific size of the truck tire is not limited by Zhu. It is well known in the art that a tire may have different tire sizes depending on the type of vehicle that the tire is to be mounted to. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the inventive tire of Zhu to any heavy-duty truck tire. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended use support prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045)". See MPEP 2144.07.
One such example is suggested by Berthier. Berthier teaches a tire for heavy-duty vehicles [0002, 0068], where the tire similarly has a tread pattern with external/internal cavities [see Figs. 1-4]. The heavy-duty tire has a size of 315/70R22.5. The diameter of the tire is a direct result of the specified tire size and rim, such that the overall tire diameter is equal to the rim diameter plus two times the section height of the tire. The size of 315/70R22.5 equates to a section width of 315mm, an aspect ratio of 70%, and a section height of 220.5mm. The rim diameter is 22.5 inches. The tire diameter can then be calculated as follows:
Diameter = (22.5 inches * 25.4mm/inch) + (2 * 220.5mm) = 571.5mm + 441mm = 1012.5mm
From this, the length of the external cavity of Zhu may be directly compared with the external diameter of the tire. The external cavity has a length of 16.5mm (at a minimum in Fig. 6 [0033] as detailed above) and the diameter of the tire is calculated to be 1012.5mm, leading to the length of the external cavity being 1.6% of the external diameter of the tire. This value is clearly within the claimed ranges. 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 5, modified Zhu suggests a tire wherein each internal cavity has a length measured along the midline on a radially external section of said internal cavity, and the length of the external cavity is from 70 to 130% of the length of the internal cavity (as stated above, the distance “L” in Fig. 6 has a length of 16.5mm, which equates to half of the pitch [0033]. The external and internal cavities alternate in the circumferential direction, and they both have substantially the same length [see Fig. 6], wherein the combined external and internal cavity length would make up an entire “pitch” of the tread. Therefore, both the internal and external cavities would have a length of substantially 16.5mm. 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 8, modified Zhu suggests a tire wherein when new an axial tread width Wt (tread width is considered to be from one axial end to the other axial end of the tread as in Fig. 6), and a lateral circumferential complex cut (either groove “3” or “7” may be considered the lateral circ complex cut), the midline of which is positioned at an axial distance from a median circumferential plane of the tire splitting the tire into two symmetrical portions (the median plane would be located at the axial center of Fig. 6, where the center groove “5” is located. This splits the tread into two, and the halves are clearly symmetrical to each other), wherein the axial distance of the lateral circumferential complex cut is equal to 25 to 45% of the axial tread width (from a simple observation of Fig. 6, it is clear that grooves “3” and “7” are each located firmly within a region of 25% to 45% of the axial tread width, as they are located over halfway from the equator to the tread edges and are not located close to the edge of the tread. The examiner additionally provides illustrations from the prior art with additional annotations as needed to facilitate discussion of the claim elements. 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. An annotated Fig. 6 is shown below, and the rightmost lateral circumferential complex cut is focused on but the leftmost groove also has the same structure. The axial tread width is shown by the top double-arrow. The axial distance from the median plane to the lateral circumferential complex cut is approximately 37% of the axial tread width).
PNG
media_image1.png
611
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhu makes obvious a tire wherein the non-complex cuts have spied axial walls (as in Fig. 6, the grooves “4” and “6” clearly have sipes intersecting with the groove on both axial walls of the groove).
Regarding claim 11, modified Zhu makes obvious a tire wherein axially outermost cuts are complex cuts (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, grooves “3” and “7”, which are axially outermost as in Fig. 6, are clearly complex cuts with external and internal cavities).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US2018/0141386A1, of record) in view of Berthier (WO2019229371 of record, citing to English Equivalent US2021/0229502A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of either Barraud (US2011/0277898A1, of record) or Mancosu (US2007/0240501A1, of record).
Regarding claims 3-4, Zhu does not explicitly state that it runs at load/pressures as defined by the ETRTO. However, it would have been obvious to situate the tire to run at these standard and recommended pressures, loads, rims, etc. as defined by the ETRTO because the ETRTO is a tire standards organization such that all tires in Europe must adhere to the standards so as to be sold in the area. It is well known in the art of tires that tires will have standard running conditions as defined by the ETRTO; see Berthier [0005, 0025]. As applied above in the rejection of claim 1, the tire of Zhu would find it obvious to use the conventional heavy duty truck tire size of 315/70R22.5 as suggested by Berthier, and the tire would necessarily have an average contact portion length on flat ground, as this is required for any tire tread, but Zhu/Berthier does not explicitly give a length of this contact portion.
Barraud teaches an analogous tire, sharing assignee’s with Zhu and the instant application, wherein is concerned with grooves featuring alternating external and internal cavities (see Figs. 7-8 for example). Barraud teaches that its suggested tire has a tire size of 315/70R22.5 [0046], and wherein under nominal conditions of use (including pressure of 8bar and load of 3000daN) the mean length of the contact patch is equal to 200mm [0046].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the mean length of the contact patch from Barraud to the tire of Zhu. One would have been motivated because Zhu is silent as to the mean contact length of its inventive tire. Modified Zhu and Barraud share both tire sizes and the standard/nominal conditions as suggested by ETRTO (including load and pressure), such that the expected mean contact patch length of Zhu would similarly reasonably be 200mm. As in the rejection of claim 1 above, the length of the external cavity of Zhu may be set at 16.5mm. At a contact patch mean length of 200mm, the length of the external cavity would be 8.25% of the mean length of the tread contact portion. 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, Mancosu teaches that the conventional contact length for truck tires ranges between 150mm and 450mm [0080]. Because Zhu is silent as to the contact length of its inventive tire, and because Zhu is tied to heavy trucks [0001], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the mean contact length of the tread range from 150mm and 450mm as conventionally suggested by Mancosu. Within this range of contact lengths, there are numerous embodiments that would satisfy the claimed range. For example, at a contact length of 300mm (the midpoint of the conventionally suggested range of Mancosu) and at a length of the external cavity of 16.5mm as suggested by Zhu, the length of the external cavity would be 5.5% of the mean length of the tread contact portion. 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 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US2018/0141386A1, of record) in view of Berthier (WO2019229371 of record, citing to English Equivalent US2021/0229502A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Audigier (US2012/0227883A1, of record).
Regarding claims 6-7, Zhu suggests a tire with external and internal cavities, wherein they naturally possess a transverse surface that is perpendicular to the midline (see Fig. 3, for example). Zhu does not explicitly suggest a relationship between the transverse surfaces of the external and internal cavities however. Audigier is tied to an analogous art (under similar assignee’s as Zhu and the instant application) which has a tire tread that has circumferential grooves with alternating external and internal cavities (see Fig. 1). Audigier’s external cavities have a cross-sectional area “S1” which is taken perpendicular to the tread surface [0021] and internal cavities have a cross-sectional area “S2” which is taken perpendicular to the tread surface [0022]. These cross-sectional areas are shown as in Figs. 2-3 (wherein it is noted that these are the same as Fig. 4B in the instant application). The difference in the mean cross-sectional areas of the internal and external cavities is at most equal to 20% of the largest mean area, such that S1/S2 ranges from 0.8 to 1.2 [0023]. 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 external/internal cavities to have the cross-sectional area relationships as suggested by Audigier. One would have been motivated so as to satisfactorily clear away water while limiting the reduction in rigidity of the tread in the new condition [0030], and so that there are always grooved elements on the tread surface regardless of the degree of tread wear [00803-0084].
Regarding claim 9, Zhu suggests a tire with external and internal cavities, wherein they naturally possess a transverse surface that is perpendicular to the midline (see Fig. 3). Audigier is tied to an analogous art (under similar assignee’s as Berthier and the instant application) which has a tire tread that has circumferential grooves with alternating external and internal cavities (see Fig. 1). Audigier’s external cavities have a cross-sectional area “S1” which is taken perpendicular to the tread surface [0021] and internal cavities have a cross-sectional area “S2” which is taken perpendicular to the tread surface [0022]. These cross-sectional areas are shown as in Figs. 2-3 (wherein it is noted that these are the same as Fig. 4B in the instant application). It is noted that the instant application does not directly define the term “arcuate surfaces”, as the newly added limitation is based upon the figures. As such, the limitation is taken under the broadest reasonable interpretation given the standard definition of “arcuate”, which in this case, simply means “curved” per the standard definition. Therefore, any groove inner surface that has any curve present would meet the claimed language of “arcuate surfaces”. In this case, the transverse surfaces of Audigier are clearly in a curved surface, as the figures are the exact same as the instant application of which the limitation was derived.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the external/internal cavities to have the shape of the internal/external cavities transverse surfaces as suggested by Audigier (i.e., curved/arcuate surfaces). One would have been motivated so as to satisfactorily clear away water while limiting the reduction in rigidity of the tread in the new condition [0030], and so that there are always grooved elements on the tread surface regardless of the degree of tread wear [00803-0084]. And as Berthier does not limit the exact shape of its cavities transverse surfaces, it would have been obvious to apply the curved shape of Audigier with a reasonable expectation of success of achieving a simple substitution of known elements so as to obtain an expected result (i.e., an improved ability of clearing away water from the external and internal cavities).
In the alternate, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US2018/0141386A1, of record) in view of Berthier (WO2019229371 of record, citing to English Equivalent US2021/0229502A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Durand (US2008/0121325A1, of record).
Regarding claim 9, Zhu suggests a tire with external and internal cavities, wherein they naturally possess a transverse surface that is perpendicular to the midline (see Figs. 3, for example). Berthier does not directly disclose the transverse surfaces as arcuate surfaces. However, it is very common within the art of tires to have grooves be curved. It is noted that the instant application does not directly define the term “arcuate surfaces”, as the newly added limitation is based upon the figures. As such, the limitation is taken under the broadest reasonable interpretation given the standard definition of “arcuate”, which in this case, simply means “curved” per the standard definition. Therefore, any groove inner surface that has any curve present would meet the claimed language of “arcuate surfaces”. Durand teaches a tire (of same Assignee as Zhu and the instant application) which is intended for heavy load tires [0001]. Durand teaches a transverse profile of a groove which has curved sidewalls and a curved bottom following the mathematical expression of Fig. 4 [0028]. As Durand is tied to a “transverse profile” of a groove, it is referring to the same view of the groove as the “transverse surface” of the complex grooves of the instant application. Such a profile of Durand allows for no points of discontinuity concentrations, as every point along the groove inner surface is curved [0026-0027].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the transverse surface of the complex groove so as to have a curved transverse profile as suggested by Durand. One would have found it obvious to prevent the appearance of micro-cracks originating on the sides of groove walls [0003, 0026-0027]. And as Durand does not limit the types of grooves it is applicable to, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the curved/continuous teachings of Durand to be applicable to the complex grooves and the internal/external cavities thereof.
Claims 1-2, 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthier (WO2019229371 of record, citing to English Equivalent US2021/0229502A1), in view of Audigier (US2012/0227883A1, of record).
Regarding claims 1-2, Berthier teaches a tire [0001] for a heavy-duty vehicle (the invention is for a heavy duty vehicle [0046]) comprising a tread (tread “1”) intended to come into contact with the ground via a tread surface (tread surface “10” which comes in contact with the ground [0053]), comprising five cuts delimiting raised elements (as in Fig. 4, there are circumferential cuts 31-33 and 41-42, such that there are 5 circumferential cuts, and a plurality of transverse sipes “5” which divide the tread into elements),
at least three cuts being a circumferential complex cut with a midline extending in a circumferential direction of the tire (as in Fig. 4, each of the wavy grooves “31”, “32”, and “33” are considered the circumferential complex cuts which extend in the circumferential direction), and comprising, when the tire is new, an alternation of external cavities and internal cavities (the wavy grooves comprise external cavities “311”, “321”, “331” which open onto the tread surface when new and internal cavities hidden within the tread [0072]), two consecutive cavities, respectively an external and internal cavity, being connected to each other by a connecting channel (the external and internal cavities are alternating as in Figs. 1-4, and the cavities are connected to one another by linking cavities [0072]. See also Fig. 2 which depicts linking cavities “313” connecting the adjacent internal and external cavities), wherein each of the at least three circumferential complex cuts are separated from each other by non-complex cuts (as in Fig. 4, the complex cuts are clearly separated by circumferential grooves “41” and “42” which do not have the alternating cavity arrangement),
each external cavity having a length measured along the midline on the tread surface of the tire when new and free (the length “Lm”, as in Fig. 4, is the distance in the longitudinal direction on the contour of each external cavity [0028]. In the case of Fig. 4, the distance Lm for each of the wavy grooves when new is set to be 77mm [0073], and wherein the tire is set to nominal conditions as defined by the ETRTO in Europe [0025] such that it would also be considered free),
the length of each external cavity is equal to at least 1.5% and at most 12% of the external diameter of the tire, as measured on the tire when new and free (the diameter of the tire is a direct result of the specified tire size and rim, such that the overall tire diameter is equal to the rim diameter plus two times the section height of the tire. The size suggested for Fig. 4 of Berthier is 315/70R22.5. This equates to a section width of 315mm, an aspect ratio of 70%, and a section height of 220.5mm. The rim diameter is 22.5 inches. The tire diameter can then be calculated as follows:
Diameter = (22.5 inches * 25.4mm/inch) + (2 * 220.5mm) = 571.5mm + 441mm = 1012.5mm
From this, the length of the external cavity Lm may be directly compared with the external diameter of the tire. Lm is set to 77mm in Fig. 4 [0077] and the diameter of the tire is calculated to be 1012.5mm, leading to the length of the external cavity being 7.6% of the external diameter of the tire. This value is clearly within the claimed ranges.
Berthier shows that the external cavities lead into the internal cavities, where the internal cavities are formed by sipes on the tread surface (see Fig. 4, “314”). Berthier does not explicitly show circumferential walls of the external cavities that taper axially and circumferentially towards each other as they approach circumferential ends of each cavity, and wherein parallel central portions are longer than the tapered portions in the circumferential direction. However, such an arrangement for complex (open/closed) grooves is well known within the art. Audigier, for example, is tied to a tire with grooves which are open/closed, where there are external cavities “21” on the tread surface that alternate with internal cavities “23” which are located below the tread surface [see Figs. 1-7], such that the grooves of Audigier are clearly analogous to those of Berthier. The external cavities are arranged with a central parallel portion, and with tapered portions on either end of the parallel portion which taper both axially/circumferentially [see Figs. 1 and 6]. The tapered portions of the external cavities “23” clearly lead to sipes which are located above the internal cavities [Fig. 1]. It is noted that Figures 1-4 of Audigier are the exact same as the instant figures, such that the grooves clearly have the substantially same shape and design which is known in the art. The grooves internal cavities would therefore necessarily have radially outer/inner walls that have lengths measured along the midline of the external section of the cavity, and Audigier’s grooves would also necessarily satisfy the structural limitations of the external/internal cavities as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the external/internal cavities of Berthier to have the shapes as suggested by Audigier. One would have been motivated so as to improve the tread in terms of water clearance over time, reduce rolling resistance [0015-0016], to reduce hydrodynamic head losses [0026, 0030-0031], and ensure good performance regardless of wear [0083-0084]. Because both Berthier and Audigier are tied to these “open/closed” types of grooves, and as these shapes of grooves are very well known in the art as demonstrated by Audigier, it would have been obvious to do a simple substitution of one known element for another (being the shape of the cavities) to obtain predictable results (that being the improved water performance/rolling resistance, etc. over time as detailed above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Berthier suggests a tire wherein the length of the external cavity is from 70 to 130% of the length of the internal cavity (as stated above, the length Lm of the external cavities of Fig. 4 are set to be equal to 77mm [0073]. The external cavities are arranged in the circumferential direction at a pitch equal to 154mm [0073]. As in Fig. 4, the external cavities alternate with internal cavities in the circumferential direction. Therefore, the internal cavities must then have a length of 77mm as well, in order for the total pitch between external cavities to equal 154mm. Additionally, it is clear from Fig. 4 that the outer surface of the external cavities and the internal cavities have the same lengths, such that the claimed range is satisfied. 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 claims 6-7, Berthier suggests a tire with external and internal cavities, wherein they naturally possess a transverse surface that is perpendicular to the midline (see Fig. 2-3, for example). Berthier does not explicitly suggest a relationship between the transverse surfaces of the external and internal cavities however. Audigier is tied to an analogous art (under similar assignee’s as Berthier and the instant application) which has a tire tread that has circumferential grooves with alternating external and internal cavities (see Fig. 1). Audigier’s external cavities have a cross-sectional area “S1” which is taken perpendicular to the tread surface [0021] and internal cavities have a cross-sectional area “S2” which is taken perpendicular to the tread surface [0022]. These cross-sectional areas are shown as in Figs. 2-3 (wherein it is noted that these are the same as Fig. 4B in the instant application). The difference in the mean cross-sectional areas of the internal and external cavities is at most equal to 20% of the largest mean area, such that S1/S2 ranges from 0.8 to 1.2 [0023]. 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 external/internal cavities to have the cross-sectional area relationships as suggested by Audigier. One would have been motivated so as to satisfactorily clear away water while limiting the reduction in rigidity of the tread in the new condition [0030], and so that there are always grooved elements on the tread surface regardless of the degree of tread wear [00803-0084].
Regarding claim 8, modified Berthier suggests a tire wherein when new an axial tread width Wt (tread width “W” as in Fig.4 [0069]) and a lateral circumferential complex cut (either wavy groove “31” or “33” may be considered the lateral circumferential complex cut), the midline of which is positioned at an axial distance from a median circumferential plane of the tire splitting the tire into two symmetrical portions (the median plane X-X’ is shown in the middle of Fig. 4 which divides the tread into two equal halves [0024], wherein from Fig. 4 the halves are clearly symmetrical compared to each other), wherein the axial distance of the lateral circumferential complex cut is equal to 25 to 45% of the axial tread width (from a simple observation of Fig. 4, it is clear that the wavy grooves “31” and “33” are each located firmly within a region of 25 to 45% of the axial tread width, as they are located over halfway from the equator to the tread edges and are not located close to the edge of the tread. The examiner additionally provides illustrations from the prior art with additional annotations as needed to facilitate discussion of the claim elements. 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. An annotated Fig. 4 is shown below, and the rightmost lateral circumferential complex cut is focused on but the leftmost groove also has the same structure. The axial tread width is shown by the top double-arrow. The axial distance from the median plane to the lateral circumferential complex cut is approximately 37% of the axial tread width.
PNG
media_image2.png
599
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Berthier suggests a tire with external and internal cavities, wherein they naturally possess a transverse surface that is perpendicular to the midline (see Figs. 2-3). Audigier is tied to an analogous art (under similar assignee’s as Berthier and the instant application) which has a tire tread that has circumferential grooves with alternating external and internal cavities (see Fig. 1). Audigier’s external cavities have a cross-sectional area “S1” which is taken perpendicular to the tread surface [0021] and internal cavities have a cross-sectional area “S2” which is taken perpendicular to the tread surface [0022]. These cross-sectional areas are shown as in Figs. 2-3 (wherein it is noted that these are the same as Fig. 4B in the instant application). It is noted that the instant application does not directly define the term “arcuate surfaces”, as the newly added limitation is based upon the figures. As such, the limitation is taken under the broadest reasonable interpretation given the standard definition of “arcuate”, which in this case, simply means “curved” per the standard definition. Therefore, any groove inner surface that has any curve present would meet the claimed language of “arcuate surfaces”. In this case, the transverse surfaces of Audigier are clearly in a curved surface, as the figures are the exact same as the instant application of which the limitation was derived.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the external/internal cavities to have the shape of the internal/external cavities transverse surfaces as suggested by Audigier (i.e., curved/arcuate surfaces). One would have been motivated so as to satisfactorily clear away water while limiting the reduction in rigidity of the tread in the new condition [0030], and so that there are always grooved elements on the tread surface regardless of the degree of tread wear [00803-0084]. And as Berthier does not limit the exact shape of its cavities transverse surfaces, it would have been obvious to apply the curved shape of Audigier with a reasonable expectation of success of achieving a simple substitution of known elements so as to obtain an expected result (i.e., an improved ability of clearing away water from the external and internal cavities).
Regarding claim 10, modified Berthier makes obvious a tire wherein the non-complex cuts have spied axial walls (as in Fig. 4, the grooves “41” and “42” clearly have sipes intersecting with the groove on both axial walls of the groove).
Regarding claim 11, modified Berthier makes obvious a tire wherein axially outermost cuts are complex cuts (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, grooves “31” and “33”, which are axially outermost as in Fig. 4, are clearly complex cuts with external and internal cavities).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthier (WO2019229371 of record, citing to English Equivalent US2021/0229502A1), in view of Audigier (US2012/0227883A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of either Barraud (US2011/0277898A1, of record) or Mancosu (US2007/0240501A1, of record).
Regarding claims 3-4, Berthier teaches that the tire is run under usual conditions as defined by ETRTO, including the inflation pressure and load bearing capacity [0025]. As defined previously, the tire is mounted onto a standard rim so as to have a tire size of 315/70R22.5 [0068]. The tire of Berthier would necessarily have an average contact portion length on flat ground, as this is required for any tire tread, but Berthier does not explicitly give a length of this contact portion.
Barraud teaches an analogous tire, sharing assignee’s with Berthier and the instant application, wherein is concerned with grooves featuring alternating external and internal cavities (see Figs. 7-8 for example). Barraud teaches that its suggested tire has a tire size of 315/70R22.5 [0046], and wherein under nominal conditions of use (including pressure of 8bar and load of 3000daN) the mean length of the contact patch is equal to 200mm [0046].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the mean length of the contact patch from Barraud to the tire of Berthier. One would have been motivated because Berthier is silent as to the mean contact length of its inventive tire. Berthier and Barraud share both tire sizes and the standard/nominal conditions as suggested by ETRTO (including load and pressure), such that the expected mean contact patch length of Berthier would similarly reasonably be 200mm. As in the rejection of claim 1 above, the length of the external cavity of Berthier is 77mm. At a contact patch mean length of 200mm, the length of the external cavity would be 38.5% of the mean length of the tread contact portion. 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, Mancosu teaches that the conventional contact length for truck tires ranges between 150mm and 450mm [0080]. Because Berthier is silent as to the contact length of its inventive tire, and because Berthier is tied to heavy-duty vehicles [0046, 0048] (wherein trucks are art recognized as a type of heavy-duty vehicle), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the mean contact length of the tread range from 150mm and 450mm as conventionally suggested by Mancosu. Within this range of contact lengths, there are numerous embodiments that would satisfy the claimed range. For example, at a contact length of 300mm (the midpoint of the conventionally suggested range of Mancosu) and at a length of the external cavity of 77mm as suggested by Berthier, the length of the external cavity would be 25.7% of the mean length of the tread contact portion. 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthier (WO2019229371 of record, citing to English Equivalent US2021/0229502A1), in view of Audigier (US2012/0227883A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Durand (US2008/0121325A1, of record).
Regarding claim 9, Berthier suggests a tire with external and internal cavities, wherein they naturally possess a transverse surface that is perpendicular to the midline (see Figs. 2-3, for example). Berthier does not directly disclose the transverse surfaces as arcuate surfaces. However, it is very common within the art of tires to have grooves be curved. It is noted that the instant application does not directly define the term “arcuate surfaces”, as the newly added limitation is based upon the figures. As such, the limitation is taken under the broadest reasonable interpretation given the standard definition of “arcuate”, which in this case, simply means “curved” per the standard definition. Therefore, any groove inner surface that has any curve present would meet the claimed language of “arcuate surfaces”. Durand teaches a tire (of same Assignee as Berthier and the instant application) which is intended for heavy load tires [0001]. Durand teaches a transverse profile of a groove which has curved sidewalls and a curved bottom following the mathematical expression of Fig. 4 [0028]. As Durand is tied to a “transverse profile” of a groove, it is referring to the same view of the groove as the “transverse surface” of the complex grooves of the instant application. Such a profile of Durand allows for no points of discontinuity concentrations, as every point along the groove inner surface is curved [0026-0027].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the transverse surface of the complex groove so as to have a curved transverse profile as suggested by Durand. One would have found it obvious to prevent the appearance of micro-cracks originating on the sides of groove walls [0003, 0026-0027]. And as Durand does not limit the types of grooves it is applicable to, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the curved/continuous teachings of Durand to be applicable to the complex grooves and the internal/external cavities thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the new amendments overcome the rejections of Berthier in view of Bardin. It is noted that a new secondary reference is applied herein, such that most of these specific arguments are moot.
Applicant argues on pg. 7 and 9 that Berthier does not provide internal cavities that have radially outer and internal walls that have a length measured along the midline.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that Fig. 2 of Berthier shows a radially inner/outer surfaces being substantially at the same location, such that one would reasonably consider these lengths to be the same. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the radially outer and inner walls having the same length) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant does not specifically require this, such that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is merely required that each of the walls have lengths measured at a certain location, not that these lengths are equal to each other. As such, Berthier would further clearly meet the claimed limitation. And lastly, as Berthier is modified by Audigier, by a simple substitution of the shape of the cavities, which has the exact same figures and shapes of grooves as in the instant application, this combination would clearly suggest these limitations.
It being noted that if Applicant did include the limitation such that the internal cavity wall surfaces (radially outer and inner) were equivalent, there does not appear to be backing for this limitation in the Applicant’s specification. The written specification is completely silent as to such a feature. And Fig. 4A, which is the only figure which provides a possible view related to this limitation, does not reasonably suggest Applicant’s possession of this to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The Length “L2” is not tied to both a radially outer and inner surface as Applicant contends, and from the angling of the figure, it appears at least equally suggested that the inner and outer wall surfaces would have different lengths to them (as opposed to the same). See annotated instant Fig. 4A, wherein it appears from the angling of the circled intersection that the wall surfaces would have different lengths.
PNG
media_image3.png
514
738
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues on pg. 8-9 that Zhu fails to provide adequate details of the lengths of its grooves.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that these arguments do not appear to be tied to any specific limitation in the claims, as the Examiner notes that the independent claim merely requires the length of the external cavity to be within a range of the diameter of the tire (of which the rejections above clearly lay out the rationale for the rejection of which Applicant does not address). Zhu explicitly gives the section length “L” of Fig. 6 to be 16.5mm, which corresponds to a half pitch of the tread. As in Fig. 6, the complex grooves clearly have alternating external/internal cavities which are of substantially the same length, such that the external cavity would have the length of 16.5mm. The fact that Zhu recognizes that the mass of the tread may be altered and/or that the undulations of the grooves may be altered does not teach away from the explicit suggestion and embodiment of Zhu which have the length “L” of Fig. 6 at 16.5mm. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2123.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that Zhu fails to disclose circumferential walls that taper axially and circumferentially towards each other as they approach respective circumferential ends of the external cavity.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. No specific arguments are presented by Applicant as to how Zhu is lacking, but the Examiner points to Figs. 3 and 6, as in the rejections above, as clearly depicting the claimed structure. For each of the external cavities as shown, there is a parallel portion which is the longest in length, and a tapered portion axially/circumferentially wherein the groove walls move in and tighten, in the same manner as in the instant application Figs. 1-3.
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
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749