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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-12, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaud (WO2018/096257, with English machine translation) in view of Miyawaki (JPH08-282213, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Babaud discloses a tire tread for a heavy civil engineering vehicle (Babaud discloses tires for heavy goods vehicle [0020,0066]; Examiner also notes that the recitation of "for a heavy civil engineering vehicle" concerns the intended use of the tread and fails to require structure not present in Babaud), designed to come into contact with the ground via a running surface, comprising blocks delimited by cut-outs, and having a width L and a height H, defined as the maximum cut-out depth (see small elements 6 provided in central rib 2, which are delimited by incisions 41, 51, see Fig. 1),
-the tread having a median portion, symmetrical about a median longitudinal plane (XZ) and having a width L1 of not more than 60% of the width L of the tread (the central 60% of Babaud's tread reads on the recited median portion),
-the median portion comprising at least one longitudinal row of blocks that is centrally arranged, wherein each block is delimited transversely by two longitudinal channels and longitudinally by two inter-block transverse cut-outs (see central portion having small elements 6 defined by circumferential incisions 41 and transverse incisions 51, see Figs. 1, 2; the figures illustrate 4 longitudinal rows of blocks that are centrally arranged--they are arranged in the center region between two shoulders),
-each longitudinal channel and each inter-block transverse cut-out, respectively, having a depth (P1, P2) equal to at least 50% of the tread height H, and being, respectively, a staged cut-out comprising a radially outer portion opening on to the running surface and a radially inner portion extending from the radially outer portion to a radially inner end (the incisions 41, 51 have a narrow outer portion and a wide radially inner portion, see Figs. 1, 3; as to the depth, Babaud discloses the depth as equal to the depth of the circumferential grooves 3--thus, equal to the tread height, [0062-0063]),
-each radially outer portion having a thickness, measured between the walls of material delimiting it, within the range from a minimum thickness (E11min, E21min) to a maximum thickness (E11max, E21max)(Babaud's incisions have a constant width, see Figs. 1,3),
-each radially inner portion having a thickness, measured between the walls of material delimiting it, within the range from a minimum thickness (E12min, E22min) to a maximum thickness (E12max, E22max)(Babaud's inner channels have a width L2, see Figs. 1, 3).
As to the longitudinal channels extending circumferentially in a zigzag pattern, Babaud discloses as a variation the blocks having a hexagonal shape wherein circumferentially oriented grooves are provided with a zigzag shape (see [0065], Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the longitudinal grooves with a zigzag pattern since Babaud discloses hexagonal shape as an alternative to the rectangular shape of Figs. 1-3 embodiment.
As to the width of the radially outer portion, Babaud discloses the width of the outer incision portion as less than the width of the inner channel portion (see Figs. 1, 3; [0007,0008,0049,0061-0062]). As to the width of the outer incision relative to the depth of the grooves, Babaud discloses the incisions as having a width of 0.6 mm and the total groove depth H is 14.5 mm ([0062-0063]), which yields a width/depth ratio of 4%, which is just outside the claimed range. Examiner notes that tread incisions (also known as sipes) are very well known and conventional in the tire tread art. Babaud's disclosed 0.6 mm represents an example width for the incision and it is conventional for incisions to have a range of suitable widths.
In the same field of endeavor of heavy-duty tire treads, Miyawaki discloses siping as having a width range of 0.5 to 1.5 mm that maintains a pattern rigidity by closing the opening with a compressive force at the time of tire contact ([0023]). Miyawaki discloses that if the siping width is less than 0.5 mm, it is difficult to form by a molding die, and if the width exceeds 1.5 mm, the opening cannot be closed at the time of ground contact and rigidity is remarkably reduced ([0023]). Examiner notes that Babaud's incisions are similarly described as sized such that the walls come into contact when passing through the region of contact with the roadway ([0007,0015,0016,0027]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the incisions of Babaud with width of 0.5 to 1.5 mm since Miyawaki teaches that a siping width range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm is equally useful for forming sipes, with said widths facilitating molding and ensuring the siping closes within the contact patch ([0023]). One would have been motivated to employ incision widths that are known to be suitable for heavy duty tires and to select sipe widths that facilitate molding (e.g., thicker and more durable molding blades).
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the minimum thickness of the radially outer portion as at least equal to 10% of the depth of the cut-out since (1) Babaud discloses the incisions as having a total groove depth H of 14.5 mm ([0062-0063]) and (2) while Babaud discloses an example width of 0.6 mm, Miyawaki, similarly directed towards a heavy duty tire, teaches that a siping width range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm is equally useful for forming sipes, with said widths facilitating molding and ensuring the siping closes within the contact patch ([0023]). One would have been motivated to employ incision widths that are known to be suitable for heavy duty tires and to select sipe widths that facilitate molding (e.g., thicker and more durable molding blades). In modified Babaud, a width of 0.5 to 1.5 mm and depth of 14.5 mm yields a width/depth ratio of 3% to 10%, said range overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, the width of the radially outer portion is constant (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Babaud discloses a radially inner portion having width L2 of 2.2 mm and the total depth of the cutout as 14.5 mm ([0062-0063]), which equates to a width/depth of 15%.
Regarding claim 5, Babaud discloses the radially inner portion having height of 4.5 mm and thickness of 2.2 mm ([0062-0063]), which equates to a height that is 2 times the thickness.
Regarding claim 6, Babaud clearly illustrates the radially inner portion as having a circular inner end where the diameter is equal to the thickness L2 (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Babaud discloses the length of the blocks as 20 mm ([0051]) and the depth of the cutouts as 14.5 mm ([0062-0063]), which equates to a depth that is 0.7 times the length of the block.
Regarding claim 8, the outer transverse incisions 51 are construed as the outer transverse cut outs. See annotated Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to the depth width of the outer transverse cuts, Babaud discloses the incisions 41 and 51 as having the same section geometry ([0049,0062,0061]). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the minimum thickness of the radially outer portion as 5% to 20% of the depth of the cut-out since (1) Babaud discloses the incisions as having a total groove depth H of 14.5 mm ([0062-0063]) and (2) while Babaud discloses an example width of 0.6 mm, Miyawaki, similarly directed towards a heavy duty tire, teaches that a siping width range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm is equally useful for forming sipes, with said widths facilitating molding and ensuring the siping closes within the contact patch ([0023]). One would have been motivated to employ incision widths that are known to be suitable for heavy duty tires and to select sipe widths that facilitate molding (e.g., thicker and more durable molding blades). In modified Babaud, a width of 0.5 to 1.5 mm and depth of 14.5 mm yields a width/depth ratio of 3% to 10%, said range overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claims 9-12, Examiner notes that the claim does not require the at least one internal cut-out to have a structure (such as depth or shape) different from the inter-block transverse cut-outs. The claims allow for the depth and widths to be the same as the other cut-outs within the tread. Babaud is construed as having alternating inter-block transverse cut-outs and internal cut-outs, wherein a block is defined between the inter-block transverse cut-outs. See annotated Fig. 2 below. Examiner notes that the instant invention similarly defines blocks comprised of smaller block elements delimited by cut-outs (see Fig. 1 wherein hexagonal blocks comprise two trapezoidal blocks delimited by cut-outs).
PNG
media_image2.png
454
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Babaud discloses tires for heavy goods vehicle [0020,0066]; Examiner also notes that the recitation of "to be fitted to a heavy civil engineering vehicle" concerns the intended use of the tire and fails to require structure not present in Babaud.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaud (WO2018/096257, with English machine translation) in view of Miyawaki (JPH08-282213, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US 2015/0151583).
Regarding claim 13, Babaud does not expressly disclose the a blocks row centered on the median longitudinal plane; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tread with a block row centered on the equator since (1) Babaud is not particularly limited to the number of block rows and discloses the blocks can have widths up to 40% of the rib width Lr ([0040]), thus suggesting smaller number of rows to accommodate wider blocks--an odd number of rows would yield a center row; and (2) Takahashi, similarly directed towards a heavy duty tire tread, discloses a pattern of polygonal blocks wherein Takahashi teaches that a block row is preferably located across the tire equator because during running a heaviest load is applied to the equator and an arrangement allowing continual presence of blocks on the tire equator may secure rigidity of the tire ([0044]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that neither Babaud nor Miyawaki disclose zig-zag longitudinal channels and a row of blocks centered on the mediate longitudinal plane.
Examiner disagrees. As to the zigzag grooves, Babaud discloses the blocks may alternatively have hexagonal shapes and thus have longitudinal zigzag grooves extending therebetween (see Fig. 4, [0065]). 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., a row of blocks centered on the median longitudinal plane) 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). Claim 1 recites "at least one longitudinal row of blocks that is centrally arranged" in lines 6-7. Babaud discloses plural rows of blocks that are centrally arranged in the tread (see Figs. 1, 4)--i.e., the rows are in the center region of the tread between two shoulder regions. Examiner notes the limitation recites "at least one" and thus allows for multiple rows that are centrally arranged. The claims do not require a row of blocks centered on the median longitudinal plane as argued by Applicant.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights