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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 9/2/2026 have been accepted. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 are amended. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 18 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 7 should read “…is 10% to 25% of a maximum axial width of the tread groove”, as this maximum axial width of the tread groove was not previously introduced.
Claim 1 line 9 should read “…to the maximum axial width forming an inflection point”, as the maximum axial width is introduced as above in line 7.
Claim 1 line 11 should read “…of a total radial height”, as the total height of the tread groove was not previously introduced.
Claim 1 lines 15-17 is grammatically incorrect and has improper antecedent basis. This limitation should read: “…wherein the tread groove [[is]] has at 5% of its total radial height, measured from a bottom of the tread groove, an axial width within a range of 30% to 60% of the maximum axial width of the tread groove;”.
Claim 1 final paragraph should read “…and wherein the maximum axial width of the top portion of the tread groove is…”, to make it clear that this is referring to the top width of the tread groove.
Claim 3 should read “…the tread groove has the maximum width Wmax…”, as this width was introduced in claim 1. It is recommended that Wmax be also introduced in claim 1 so as to keep the term “Wmax” present in all uses of the maximum width of the tread groove.
Claim 4 should read “…the tread groove has the maximum width Wmax…”, as this width was introduced in claim 1. It is recommended that Wmax be also introduced in claim 1 so as to keep the term “Wmax” present in all uses of the maximum width of the tread groove.
Claim 6 should read “…tread groove has the maximum width Wmax…”, as this width was introduced in claim 1. It is recommended that Wmax be also introduced in claim 1 so as to keep the term “Wmax” present in all uses of the maximum width of the tread groove.
Claim 7 should read “…wherein the maximum width of the tread groove is located at a radial height in a range of 40-60% of the total radial height of the tread groove”, as both the maximum width and total height were previously introduced.
Claim 8 should read “…wherein the maximum width of the tread groove is located at 50% of the total radial height of the tread groove”, as both of these were introduced in claim 1.
Claim 10 line 1 should read “…wherein the maximum axial width of the tread groove”, as this was introduced in claim 1.
Claim 10 line 3 should read “…less than 50% of the maximum axial width of the shoulder groove”, as this was introduced in claim 1.
Claim 10 line 5 should read “…20% to 45% of the total radial height of the tread groove and the shoulder groove”.
Claim 11 line 3 should read “…area of the shoulder groove”, as this shoulder groove was already introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett (WO2023069067A1, of record) in view of Eikermann (WO2022100800, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Collett teaches a pneumatic tire (Fig. 1) comprising:
A tread (“20”) having a tread groove extending continuously in the circumferential direction (the tread groove may be considered to be the groove “24” that extends along the circumferential direction and is located on the equator [Fig. 2, 5]),
Fig. 6 of Collett shows a cross-section of the groove located on the centerline, wherein the groove has a narrowed top portion and an enlarged bottom portion. Collett does not explicitly teach all of the details of the cross-section of the tread groove (such as the intermediate portion walls angled at 25-60 degrees) as Collett does not provide specific dimensionality teachings. Collett does not limit its tread to the embodiment shown in Fig. 6. Tread grooves with these types of cross-sections (with a sipe at the top portion and with an enlarged bottom below the tread surface) are well-known within the art. Eikermann teaches a tire comprising a tread groove extending continuously in the circumferential direction (circumferential grooves “1” as in tread “2” in Figs. 3-4, clearly extending in the circumferential direction). Eikermann provides examples of known tread groove cross-sections in the art as in Fig. 4. The cross-sections and grooves are highly similar to that of Collett, with a narrowed top portion of the groove, with an enlarged bottom which is hidden from the tread groove. Additionally, the overall groove structure is very similar, with an “open/closed” structure which alternates the groove structure along the circumferential direction (see Collett Fig. 2 and Eikermann Fig. 3, for example).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the center tread grooves of Collett to have the cross-sections as suggested by Eikermann. One would have been motivated so as to have a more specific geometry, as Eikermann suggests various preferred dimensions [see Figs. 4, pgs. 1-3 of machine translation], where Collett is silent as to preferred dimensions of its cross-section. Such grooves are known to improve absorbing water from the roadway and braking performance in wet conditions [pgs. 1-3 of machine translation, Eikermann]. It would have been no more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results to modify the cross-section of the groove of Collett with that of Eikermann. And as noted above, one would have expected the predictable results of absorbing water from the roadway and braking performance, in providing this known alternative groove cross-section of Eikermann to the groove of Collett. See MPEP 2143 B. Such a modification would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Modified Collett makes obvious the tread groove has a top portion, a bottom portion, and a transition portion between the top portion and the bottom portion (the circumferential tread grooves may have a cross-section as shown in Fig. 4 of Eikermann. In this Figure, the top section is considered to be the narrow outer groove “3”, the intermediate portion is from the bottom of “3” to the maximum width position, and the bottom portion is considered the bottom of “4” from a region of the maximum width to the radially innermost portion of the groove. An annotated Fig. 4 is shown below to identify each of the three different portions of the groove. Double-sided arrows are included on the side of the figure to mark each of the radial locations of the three portions),
PNG
media_image1.png
367
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein a maximum axial width of the tread groove in the top portion is 10% to 25% of the maximum axial width of the tread groove (the width of the top portion BV,1 is 3mm or less [Eikermann, pg. 1, pg. 3]. The groove width BV,2 max as in Fig. 4 of Eikermann has a width of 7.5mm or less [pg. 16], which is considered the maximum axial width of the groove. The limitation would be satisfied in numerous suggested embodiments, such as when the top width portion is 1.5mm and the maximum width is 7.5mm, for a value of 20%. 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 regarding this limitation, the drawings may reasonably suggest dimensions of the width relationships of the groove. An annotated Fig. 4 is included below of Eikermann. “1” is the measurement of the width of the top portion and it has a value of 1.00, and “2” is the measurement of the max width of the tread groove and it has a value of 5.06. This yields a value of 19.8%, which is within the claims range of 10-25%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in the design process, specifically in choosing max widths of the top portion and of the groove. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)),
PNG
media_image2.png
454
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein the tread groove has opposed sidewalls wherein they are tapered away from each other in the intermediate portion to a maximum width forming an inflection point, and from the inflection point to the bottom the sidewalls are tapered continuously towards each other (in the intermediate portion as identified above, the sidewalls are clearly tapered towards each other leading to an inflection point which is the maximum width position. And in the bottom portion as identified above, the sidewalls, each located on either axial side of the figure, are clearly tapered towards each other, as the width of the groove decreases moving radially inwards towards the bottom),
Wherein the maximum axial width is 20% to 35% of the total radial height (The groove width BV,2 max as in Fig. 4 of Eikermann has a width of 7.5mm or less [pg. 16], which is considered the maximum axial width of the groove. The total radial height of the groove as in Fig. 4 would be the combination of H1v and H2v, wherein H1v may have a value from 1.2 to 10.8mm and H2v from 2.4mm to 12.5mm [pg. 16-17 of machine translation]. There would be numerous instances within the suggested ranges of Eikermann that would satisfy this claimed relationship. For example when all of the groove are at their maximum, the maximum axial groove width would be 32% of the total radial height. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to work within the supplied ranges of Eikermann to optimize the performance of the tire, and one would have landed upon the claimed range),
Wherein the opposed sidewalls in the intermediate portion are angled in a range of 25-60 degrees with the axial direction (the opening angle A1v of the second groove section “4” is from 90 to 180 degrees [pg. 16 of Eikermann], such that the claimed angle range would necessarily lie within the claimed range when considered to be with respect to the tire axial direction. 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). Additionally, it is clear from a simple observation of Fig. 4 of Eikermann that the claimed angle range would be satisfied, as the angle in Fig. 4 is approximately 40 degrees to the axial direction), and wherein the opposed sidewalls in the top portion are straight (see Fig. 4 of Eikermann),
Wherein the tread groove has at 5% of its total radial height an axial width within a range of 30-60% of the maximum axial width of the tread groove (Eikermann teaches that the maximum width of the bottom portion would be 7.5mm or less [pg. 16 of machine translation], and Fig.4 makes it clear that the width decreases from the maximum width portion to the minimum width position. Therefore, the given range would substantially overlap would lead a minimum width of the first portion substantially within the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As additionally, no conclusive shown of unexpected results have been shown. In the alternate, reference is made to the annotated Fig. 4 of Eikermann below. In the figure, “1” is a measurement from the bottom of the groove to the top of the groove, and it is given a standard value of 1.00 for easy comparison. “2” is 0.05 as the measurement to 5% from the bottom of the groove. “3” is the measurement of the maximum width of the groove, and it has a value of 0.57. “4” is the minimum width of the bottom portion of the groove Wb, and it has a value of 0.33. From this, the width at 5% from the bottom would be approximately 57.9% of the maximum axial width of the tread groove. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process, specifically in choosing a groove width profile. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). From Fig. 4 of Eikermann, one of ordinary skill would have found the width at 5% from the bottom of the groove to be ~58% of the maximum axial width of the tread groove, inside of the claimed range.
PNG
media_image3.png
373
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein the tread further comprises a shoulder groove (the shoulder groove is considered to be the axially outermost circumferential groove “24” as in Figs. 1-2 and 5 of Collett), wherein the tread shoulder groove has one or more of different criteria (the shoulder circumferential groove of Collett is clearly in a V-like shape [see Fig. 1]. From a simple observation of Fig. 1, the sidewalls are clearly within the range of 75-85deg, and are approximately 77deg. Collett further states that the groove sidewalls may be arranged 0-12 degrees to a direction perpendicular to the ground side, such that this would be from 78-90deg to the axial direction [0051]. Also in Fig. 1, there is clearly a continuous taper in the shoulder grooves from the outermost to innermost portions),
And wherein the maximum axial width of the top portion of the tread groove is less than 10% of a maximum axial width of the shoulder groove or more than 3% of the maximum axial width of the shoulder groove (as Collett’s outer groove would have a width of greater than 2mm [0020], and that the top portion as suggested by Eikermann’s would be from 3mm or less [pg. 1, 3], such that it would reasonably be suggested that the top portion of the tread groove has a width of more than 3% of the width of the shoulder groove and/or less than 10% of the max width of the shoulder groove within the ranges as suggested by Collett/EIkermann. 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 2, modified Collett makes obvious a tire wherein the bottom portion has a minimum width Wb from 1.5 to 3.5mm (the groove width BV,2 max as in Fig. 4 of Eikermann has a width of 7.5mm or less [pg. 16], and Fig. 4 makes it clear that the width decreases from the maximum width portion to the minimum width portion of the bottom groove. Therefore, it is expected that the given range would substantially overlap and would lead to a minimum width of the bottom portion which is within the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Alternatively, Fig. 4 may be used to reasonably suggest dimensions of the minimum width Wb at a location of 5% from the bottom of the groove to get the minimum width Wb. An annotated Fig. 4 of Eikermann is included below to facilitate discussion. “1” is a measurement from the bottom of the groove to the top of the groove, and it is given a standard value of 1.00 for easy comparison. “2” is 0.05 as the measurement to 5% from the bottom of the groove. “3” is the measurement of the maximum width of the groove, and it has a value of 0.57. “4” is the minimum width of the bottom portion of the groove Wb, and it has a value of 0.33. From this, Wb would have a width of approximately 0.58 times the maximum width. Within the range of maximum widths taught by Eikermann (7.5mm or less), this would clearly overlap with the claimed range. For example, a maximum groove width of 6mm (within Eikermann’s disclosed range) would yield a minimum bottom portion width of approximately 3.48mm.
PNG
media_image3.png
373
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process, specifically in choosing a minimum width Wb of the bottom portion as described above. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Collett suggests a tire wherein the groove has a max width Wman from 4-9mm and 5-7mm (the groove width BV,2 max as in Fig. 4 of Eikermann has a width of 7.5mm or less [pg. 16]. 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 6, modified Collett suggests a tire wherein a ratio of Wmax to Wb ranges from 1.5 to 2.5 (reference is made to the annotated Fig. 4 in the rejection of claim 2 above. Fig. 4 clearly has a decreasing width from the maximum width to the minimum width portion, and Fig. 4 of Eikermann looks substantially similar to that of the instant application’s Figs. 3a and 4a. Moreover, it is held that guidance as provided by the figures is sufficient to enable public possession of an inventive concept. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that the given ratio of Wmax to Wb would overlap with the claim range of 1.5 to 2.5. It being noted that unexpected results have not been shown).
Alternatively, reference is made to the annotated Fig. 4 in the rejection of claim 2 above. The measured maximum width has a value of 0.57, and the measured Wb value is 0.33. This yields a ratio of 1.73 which is within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process, specifically in choosing a ratio between Wmax and Wb of the bottom portion as described above. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). From Fig 4 of Eikermann, one would have found that the ratio between the widths is approximately 1.73, thus suggesting the claimed range).
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Collett suggests a tire wherein the maximum width of the groove is located at a height of 40-60% and 50% of the total radial height (from a simple observation of Fig. 4 of Eikermann, the maximum width of the groove appears to be at substantially at 50% of the total height of the groove. Additionally, H1v, which is the height of the top portion, ranges from 1.2 to 10.8mm and is 20-60% of the tread depth [pg. 6]. And H2v, which is the height of the intermediate and bottom sections, ranges from 2.4mm to 12.5mm and is from 40 to 70% of the profile depth [pg. 6, 16]. From these range of radial heights, it would be expected that the maximum width position of the groove would substantially overlap with 40-60% and 50% of the total tread height within the given ranges taught by Eikermann. 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). Additionally, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results).
Regarding claim 10, modified Collett suggests a tire wherein the maximum axial width of the tread groove is one or more of: less than 50% of the maximum axial width of the shoulder groove, more than 30% of the maximum axial width of the shoulder groove, 20% to 45% of a total radial height of the tread groove and the shoulder groove (Collett’s outer shoulder groove would have a width of greater than 2mm [0020], and Eikermann’s maximum axial width of the tread groove may be the groove width BV,2 max as in Fig. 4 which has a width of 7.5mm or less [pg. 16]. No matter what the groove widths are of the shoulder groove or maximum axial width, the claim limitations would necessarily be satisfied, as the width of the shoulder groove would either be less than 50% or more than 30% of the maximum axial width of the shoulder groove. And additionally/alternatively, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to work within these given ranges, and one would have landed upon the claimed ration, for 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 11, modified Collett suggests a tire wherein the cross-sectional area of the tread groove is less than 35% and/or more than 15% of the total cross-sectional area of the shoulder groove (it is noted that the cross-section of the center tread groove at its wide portion, as shown in Fig. 1 of Collett which doesn’t have the enlarged bottom portion below a sipe, would clearly be more than 15% of the area of the shoulder groove as the shape would be substantially the same. And in the case where the cross-sectional area is taken where there is the enlarged bottom as in Fig. 4 of Eikermann, the area would be substantially smaller due to the narrow sipe at the top, such that it would be reasonable to consider this much smaller area to be less than 35% of the area of the shoulder groove. Additionally, it is noted that Applicant has not demonstrated a conclusive showing of unexpected results or criticality).
Regarding claim 18, modified Collett makes obvious a tire which is a truck tire ([Collett, 0002]), a pneumatic tire [0001]), three circumferential grooves and two shoulder grooves (see Collett Fig. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant does not present any specific arguments in their Remarks filed 9/2/2026. Applicant merely states that while some individual limitations are taught by Eikermann, the combined limitations are not taught by the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Applicant’s arguments are thus found unconvincing at least because of this reason.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights