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 Amendment filed June 3, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 2 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the objection to the abstract and the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 3, 2025.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,763,911 (Montagne) in view of JP 2013-129427 (Takashi), machine translation attached.
Regarding claim 1, Montagne discloses a tire comprising three or more circumferential main grooves (16, 17, 18, 19), on a tread surface, extending in the tire circumferential direction and having a groove width that prevents two side walls from contacting each other when the tire is grounded (see Figures 1 and 3), wherein
Among the three or more circumferential main grooves at least one of a pair of shoulder main grooves (18, 19) disposed on the outermost side the tire width direction is configured such that inclination angle formed by a groove wall on a tread edge side and the tread surface is greater than 90 degrees (see Figure 1, column 2, lines 28-44 where it is explained that the groove wall angle α1 is about 20 degrees inclining toward the land portion side, yielding an angle of at least 110 degrees (90 + 20 = 110)).
Montagne also discloses that at least one circumferential main groove (16, 17) other than the pair of shoulder main grooves (groove on equator) is configured such that a maximum groove width position in the groove depth direction is located on a groove bottom side than a tread surface position (see Figure 1, column 2, lines 28-37).
Montagne also discloses that the tire comprises a first width direction groove (20) that is connected to the shoulder main groove, extends in the width direction, and opens at the tread edge (see Figures 1 and 3), and
All of the width direction grooves on the tread surface are the first width direction grooves (see Figure 3).
Montagne does not disclose that the first width direction groove has a greater groove width on the tread edge side than on the side connecting to the shoulder main groove; however, Takashi discloses an analogous heavy duty tire comprising width direction grooves (7) having a groove width that is greater on the tread edge side connecting each shoulder circumferential groove to a tread end (see Figures 1 and 2). Takashi teaches that providing each width direction groove with a wider groove width that is greater on the tread edge side helps to ensure drainage performance and uneven wear resistance (see lines 281-288 machine translation). The width direction grooves of Takashi also have a groove length, along its extending direction, of a first portion of the first width direction groove shorter than a length , along its extending direction, of a second portion of the first width direction groove (see Figure 2 showing L3 and L5 are shorter than L4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide each width direction groove of Montagne with a greater groove width on the tread edge side than on the side connecting to the shoulder main groove, and a first portion shorter than a second portion of the first width direction groove, in order to ensure drainage performance and uneven wear resistance, as taught by Takashi.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-39482 (Okazaki), machine translation previously provided, in view of JP 2013-129427 (Takashi), machine translation attached.
Regarding claim 1, Okazaki discloses a tire comprising three or more circumferential main grooves (5), on a tread surface (7), extending in the tire circumferential direction and having a groove width that prevents two side walls from contacting each other when the tire is grounded (see Figure 1), wherein
Among the three or more circumferential main grooves at least one of a pair of shoulder main grooves disposed on the outermost side the tire width direction is configured such that inclination angle formed by a groove wall on a tread edge side and the tread surface is greater than 90 degrees (see Figure 2, machine translation lines 229-241 where it is explained that angle δ1 is 15 degrees or more inclining toward the land portion side, yielding an angle of at least 105 degrees (90 + 15 = 105)).
Okazaki also discloses at least one circumferential main groove other than the pair of shoulder main grooves (groove on equator), and that angle of the groove side walls 6b may range from -15 degrees to 15 degrees (see machine translation 215-219). While Figures 1 and 2 depict an embodiment where “the sidewall angle ß1 is set to be negative and inclined toward the land portion side, and the other sidewall is inclined to the side opposite to the land portion is set to be positive” (see machine translation 215-219), an embodiment with the opposite configuration where the sidewall angle is set to be positive and inclined away from the land portion side, and the other sidewall is inclined to the side opposite to the land portion is set to be negative is also within the teachings of the disclosure. The resulting groove of such an embodiment would be configured such that a maximum groove width position in the groove depth direction is located on a groove bottom side than a tread surface position.
Okazaki also discloses that the tire may comprise a first width direction groove (10) that is connected to the shoulder main groove, extends in the tire width direction, and opens at the tread edge on at least one of the land portions (see lines 312-314 machine translation) and all the width direction grooves on the tread surface are the first width direction grooves (see Figure 8, lines 312-314 machine translation). This suggests that width direction grooves across the center portion are optional, and an embodiment is envisaged where only the shoulder land portions have width direction grooves.
Okazaki does not disclose that the first width direction groove has a greater groove width on the tread edge side than on the side connecting to the shoulder main groove; however, Takashi discloses an analogous heavy duty tire comprising width direction grooves (7) having a groove width that is greater on the tread edge side connecting each shoulder circumferential groove to a tread end (see Figures 1 and 2). Takashi teaches that providing each width direction groove with a wider groove width that is greater on the tread edge side helps to ensure drainage performance and uneven wear resistance (see lines 281-288 machine translation). The width direction grooves of Takashi also have a groove length, along its extending direction, of a first portion of the first width direction groove shorter than a length , along its extending direction, of a second portion of the first width direction groove (see Figure 2 showing L3 and L5 are shorter than L4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide each width direction groove of Okazaki with a greater groove width on the tread edge side than on the side connecting to the shoulder main groove, and a first portion shorter than a second portion of the first width direction groove, in order to ensure drainage performance and uneven wear resistance, as taught by Takashi.
Regarding claim 2, Okazaki also discloses that the pair of shoulder main grooves are configured such that the inclination angle formed by a groove wall on the tire equatorial plane side and the tread surface is 90 degrees or less (see Figure 2, machine translation lines 200-202 where it is explained that angle α1 is within the range of -6 to 0 degrees, allowing for a range of 90 to 94 degrees (90 - 6 = 94)), which overlaps the claimed range of 90 degrees or less.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and 2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781