Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1) In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
2) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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.
3) Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisamichi et al (US 5,152,852) in view of Japan 003 (JP 03-037003 U) and/or Columbo et al (US 2010/0132864).
Hisamichi et al discloses a pneumatic tire (passenger size 205/60R15) having a tread comprising blocks separated by circumferential grooves 1 and transverse grooves 2 wherein angle θo of the transverse groove is, for example, 65 degrees with respect to circumferential direction (25 degrees with respect to the axial direction), angle θi is, for example, 55 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction (35 degrees with respect to the axial direction) and offset distance of apex C from the tire center line CL is 5 to 15% tread width (e.g. 8%), and the transverse grooves may be inclined along straight lines or moderately curved lines [col. 3 lines 5-8]. See FIGURE 3 and EXAMPLE TIRE I and EXAMPLE TIRE 2. The description of “for a heavy goods vehicle” in the preamble relates to intended use and fails to require tire structure not disclosed by Hisamichi et al.
In claim 1, apex tip 61 is offset from central circumferential plane at axial distance Yp which is at most 20% tread width. In claim 12, apex tip 61 is offset from central circumferential plane at axial distance Yp which is at most 10% tread width. Hisamichi teaches apex C is offset from tire center line CL by 5 to 15% (e.g. 8%) tread width and that the value 8% falls within the claimed range of at most 20% (claim 1) and within the claimed range of at most 10% tread width (claim 12); FIGURE 3 of Hisamichi illustrating the offset.
As to claim 1, the subject matter of “wherein one block in each row of blocks has a leading edge in the form of a chevron with its tip on the circumferential plane (P) and a portion of its leading edge extending at least to the central circumferential plane (P0)” [last three lines of claim 1] is satisfied by Hisamichi. An annotated copy of FIGURE 3 of Hisamichi et al is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
636
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, the annotations where added by examiner to facilitate discussion of Hisamichi et al. In the MARKED UP FIGURE, “LE” is a leading edge of a block, “PO” is the central circumferential plane and “P”, which contains the respective tips of the rows of blocks in the form of a chevron, is non-median and axially positioned relative to the central circumferential plane “P0”. As can be seen from the MARKED UP FIGURE, a portion of the leading edge LE extends from plane P and through plane P0. It is noted again that Hisamichi et al teaches that apex C is offset from tire center line CL by 5 to 15% (e.g. 8%) tread width. Thus, Hisamichi et al teaches that an axial distance Yp between the circumferential plane (P) and the central circumferential plane (P0) is 8% tread width. Hisamichi et al’s range of 5 to 15% falls within the range of at most 20% in claim 1 and overlaps the range of at most 10% in claim 12. Hisamichi et al’s example of 8% falls within the range of at most 20% in claim 1 and falls within the range of at most 10% in claim 12.
In Hisamichi et al, the blocks of the same row of blocks in the form of a chevron are separated in pairs by a circumferential groove (circumferential cut out), which has a mean line (Lc) which forms with the circumferential direction (XX’), a mean angle (A) of 0 degrees instead of a mean angle (A) less than 45 degrees and at least equal to 10 degrees.
As to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hisamichi et al’s pneumatic tire (passenger size 205/60R15) having a tread comprising a directional tread pattern such that the blocks of the same row of blocks in the form of a chevron are separated in pairs by a circumferential groove (circumferential cut out), which has a mean line (Lc) which forms with the circumferential direction (XX’), a mean angle (A) of less than 45 degrees and at least equal to 10 degrees instead of a mean angle of 0 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction since (1) Japan 003 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger tire size 185/70R13) having a tread comprising a directional tread pattern such that circumferential grooves 10, 12 connecting transverse grooves 18 are inclined with respect to the circumferential direction [FIGURE 1] wherein angle of outer circumferential grooves 12 with respect to circumferential direction minus angle of inner circumferential grooves 10 with respect to circumferential direction (angle difference) is 5 to 10 degrees to improve drainage and snow removal, increase side effect of blocks, effectively suppress wandering and always provide fully satisfactory traction, straight line performance and cornering performance regardless of the road surface condition of a low friction road [machine translation] and wherein FIGURE 1 illustrates angle of outer circumferential grooves 12 being about 17 degrees with respect to circumferential direction and angle of inner circumferential grooves 10 being about 10 degrees with respect to circumferential direction and/or (2) Colombo et al teaches providing a vehicle tire having a tread comprising a directional tread pattern such that circumferential grooves 11, 12, 13, 14 connecting transverse grooves are inclined with respect to the circumferential direction [FIGURE 13] wherein angle of outer circumferential grooves 11, 14 is 0 to 20 degrees with respect to circumferential direction and angle of inner circumferential grooves 12, 13 is 0 to 20 degrees with respect to circumferential direction [paragraph 69].
As to claims 1-3 [angle of transverse cut outs], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hisamichi et al’s tire such that the transverse grooves are inclined at mean angle of angle of 15 to 55 degrees (or 25 to 55 degrees or 15 to 40 degrees) with respect to the axial direction since Hisamichi et al teaches that angle θo of the transverse groove is, for example, 65 degrees with respect to circumferential direction (25 degrees with respect to the axial direction) and angle θi is, for example, 55 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction (35 degrees with respect to the axial direction).
As to claims 2 and 3, note Hisamichi et al’s FIGURE 3 and Hisamichi et al’s Invention Example II in Table 2 wherein angle θo of the transverse groove is 65 degrees with respect to circumferential direction (25 degrees with respect to the axial direction), angle θi is 55 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction (35 degrees with respect to the axial direction).
As to claims 4 and 5, note Hisamichi et al’s teaching that the transverse grooves may be inclined along straight lines or moderately curved lines [col. 3 lines 5-8].
4) Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisamichi et al (US 5,152,852) in view of Japan 003 (JP 03-037003 U) and/or Columbo et al (US 2010/0132864) as applied above in view of Bortolet al (US 2017/0157990).
As to claims 4 and 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hisamichi et al’s pneumatic tire such that each branch of the mean line of any transverse cut-out in the form of a chevron has a concave curvilinear shape so that the center of curvature at any point of the branch is positioned, in the travel direction of the tire, in front of the branch [claim 4], the radius of curvature R at any point of the branch of concave curvilinear shape is at least equal to the width W of the tread [claim 5] in view of (1) the inclination of the transverse grooves 2 shown in FIGURE 3 of Hisamichi et al, (2) Hisamichi et al’s teaching that the transverse grooves may be inclined along straight lines or moderately curved lines [col. 3 lines 5-8] and (3) Bortolet et al’s teaching to provide inclined transverse grooves with concave curvilinear shape as shown in FIGURE 1.
5) Claims 6-7, 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisamichi et al (US 5,152,852) in view of Japan 003 (JP 03-037003 U) and/or Columbo et al (US 2010/0132864) as applied above and further in view of Kogure et al (US 5,355,922).
As to claims 6-7, 9-10 and 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hisamichi et al’s passenger tire such that W2 = 20 to 150% D2 and
W1 = 20 to 150% D1 since Kogure teaches providing a pneumatic passenger tire having a tread comprising circumferential grooves and transverse grooves such that, for example width (circumferential groove) = 6 mm, depth (circumferential groove) = 8.5 mm and width (transverse groove) = 4 mm, depth (transverse groove) = 8.5 mm [EXAMPLE 1]. Therefore, Kogure et al teaches W2 = 47% D2 for transverse grooves in a tread of a passenger tire and W1 = 71% D1 for circumferential grooves in a passenger tire. The value of 47% falls within the range of at least 20% in claim 6. The value of 47% falls within the range of at least 30% in claim 13.
6) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisamichi et al (US 5,152,852) in view of Japan 003 (JP 03-037003 U) and/or Columbo et al (US 2010/0132864) as applied above and further in view of Japan 411 (JP 2000-318411) and/or Ohsawa (US 2001/0032691).
As to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hisamichi et al’s passenger tire such that any transverse cut out in the form of a chevron comprises a protuberance at the base of the cut out in the region of the tip of the chevron like shape since (1) Japan 411 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising inclined transverse grooves such that protuberances 7 are formed at the base of the inclined transverse grooves to secure excellent drainage performance [FIGURES 1-4, machine translation] or (2) Ohsawa teaches providing a tire having a tread comprising circumferential grooves and transverse grooves such that protuberances 20 are formed at the base of the grooves to reduce a resistance to water in a groove to improve wet performance [FIGURES 1, 14].
Remarks
7) Applicant's arguments filed 2-17-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no reason why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted by Japan 003 or Colombo et al’s teachings to arrange Hisamichi et al’s grooves 1 at an angle. This argument is not persuasive. Hisamichi et al, Japan 003 and Columbo et al are in the same field of endeavor of tires and are directed to the same structure of a tread having a directional tread pattern comprising blocks separated by circumferential grooves and transverse grooves. In light of Japan 003 and/or Colombo et al, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it to be an obvious alternative to incline the circumferential grooves separating the blocks in Hisamichi et al’s tire tread at a small acute angle (an angle in the claimed range of
10-45 degrees) with respect to the circumferential direction instead of at an angle
of 0 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction. One of ordinary skill in the
art would readily appreciate that using a small acute angle instead of an angle of
0 degrees not only improves drainage and snow removal, but also (i) has good traction and cornering performance because the left and right block side edges simultaneously grip on low friction road surfaces, (ii) prevents the tire from skidding because the circumferential side edges of the blocks catch on the road surface and (iii) suppresses tire wandering because the side edges exert and centripetal force on the tire. See for example machine translation of Japan 003. In other words, a beneficial side edge effect is obtained when using a small acute angle instead of an angle of zero degrees to obtain the expected and predictable benefits of effectively suppressing wandering and always providing fully satisfactory traction, straight line performance and cornering performance regardless of the road surface condition of a low friction road. See machine translation of Japan 003. Also, Columbo et al’s teaching to incline the circumferential grooves at an angle of 0 to 20 degrees with respect to circumferential direction informs one of ordinary skill in the art that using an angle of 10-20 degrees is an alternative to using an angle of 0 degrees; an angle of 10 to 20 degrees falling within the claimed range of 10 to 45 degrees.
Applicant argues that Hisamichi would not be modified as set forth in the Office Action because it would change the principal operation of Hisamichi. Applicant is incorrect because Hisamichi et al’s teaching to offset apex C from the tire center line is not being modified.
Applicant argues that the primary reference (Hisamichi et al) already had the capabilities that the secondary references (Japan 003 and/or Colombo et al) provided with its added disclosures. Applicant is incorrect because it is impossible for circumferential grooves inclined at zero degrees with respect to the circumferential direction to have the side edge effect benefit provided by circumferential grooves inclined at a small acute angle with respect to the circumferential direction.
Applicant’s arguments reading col.3 lines 53-61 and col. 5 lines 22-36 of Hisamichi et al are not persuasive. FIRST: Hisamichi et al’s teaching at col. 3 lines
53-62 is directed to the offset of the apex C of the transverse grooves from the tire centerline instead of the inclination of the circumferential grooves with respect to the circumferential direction. SECOND: Hisamichi et al’s disclosure regarding specific angles θo, θi (col. 4 lines 56-68, col. 5 lines 1-3) is directed to inclination of the transverse grooves instead of the inclination of the circumferential grooves with respect to the circumferential direction. THIRD: Hisamichi et al’s disclosure at col. 5 lines 22-36 is directed to groove area ratio of the tread instead of inclination of grooves; groove area ratio being defined by area of the grooves in the tread instead of inclination of grooves in the tread.
Applicant’s arguments regarding findings on pages 9-10 of response filed
2-27-26 are not persuasive since Japan 003 describes multiple benefits of side edge effect obtained by inclining circumferential grooves with respect to the circumferential direction. See page 4 lines 23-28 and page 5 lines 1-26 of machine translation of Japan 003. Also, see improved results for starting performance, braking performance, straightness, turnability and rut wandering in Tables 1 and 2 of Japan 003.
8) No claim is allowed.
9) THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn B Smith (Whatley) can be reached on 571-270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
March 12, 2026