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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Figures: The examiner provides illustrations from the prior art with additional annotations as needed to facilitate discussion of the claim elements. Moreover, it is held that guidance as provided by the figures is sufficient to enable public possession of an inventive concept. That is, an enabling picture may be used to reject claims directed to an article to include: anticipating claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (EP 0469815 A2 – of record), in view of at least one of Poque et al. (EP 0213452 A2 – of record), or Nagase (JP 6575649 B2 – of record), in view of Yoshida (US 2016/0144666 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda discloses it is common for tire to have a plurality of blocks delimited by axial and circumferentially extending grooves, see at least Figs. 1, 1A – (construed as a tire having a tread portion comprising a plurality of axial grooves; a plurality of blocks separated by the plurality of axial grooves; and a block row including the plurality of blocks). Ikeda further discloses an inventive block configured to have a circumferential sipe 3, see at least Fig. 2a – (corresponds to each of the blocks is provided with one circumferential sipe). The circumferential sipe 3 extends in the tire circumferential direction so as to communicate with at least one of the axial grooves and has one or more bent portions bent locally, see at least Fig. 2a.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ikeda does not explicitly disclose at least one of edges of the circumferential sipe is provided with a chamfered portion, or the claimed middle axial groove orientations. However, such tread structures are well-known in the art being suitable for enhancing sipes by extending the edge effects thereof and tailoring the tread groove to enhance drainage.
Poque discloses it is common to form sipes 5 to have openings 6 – (construed as chamfers). This being beneficial for increasing the volume of the sipe which has a positive effect of noise reduction, see at least [0017]. Thus, one would form at least one of the edges of Ikeda’s circumferential sipes with a chamfered portion to provide the tread with reduced noise.
Nagase discloses chamfering 14 reduces the actual contact area of a land portion 8 and increases the contact pressure of the land portion 8. As a result, the land portion 8 has improved drainage performance, and in particular, improved steering stability performance on wet road surfaces during high-speed traveling, see at least page 17 paragraph 7. Thus, one would form at least one of the edges of Ikeda’s circumferential sipes with a chamfered portion to provide the tread with improved steering stability performance on wet road surfaces during high-speed traveling.
Yoshida discloses a tread pattern having middle lateral grooves 20 – (construed as first middle axial grooves) which extend from and connects to circumferential extending main grooves 3 – (construed as a first crown circumferential groove) and 4 – (construed as a first shoulder circumferential groove). The grooves 20 are further arranged such that each groove consists of an outer portion – (construed as a first groove portion) and an inner portion – (construed as a second groove portion). The outer portion/ first groove portion communicates with the circumferential grooves 4/first shoulder circumferential grooves and extends linearly and obliquely with respect to a tire axial direction.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Shoulder groove)][AltContent: textbox (Crown groove)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inner portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outer portion)]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And the inner portion/ second groove portion communicates with the circumferential grooves 3/first crown circumferential grooves and extends linearly and obliquely with respect to a tire axial direction, see at least FIG 1. This being beneficial for improving on-ice performance by discharging the ice introduced therein using tire rotation, see [0061]. Thus, one would form Ikeda’s axial grooves in the claimed orientation with an expectation of increasing the on-ice properties of the tread.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ikeda’s tread pattern to have chamfered sipes as taught by Poque or Nagase and have the middle axial groove orientation of Yoshida to provide the tread with aforementioned benefits.
Regarding claims 2, 3, modified Ikeda discloses the chamfered portion is formed over the entire length of the circumferential sipe; and wherein each of the edges of the circumferential sipe on both sides thereof is provided with the chamfered portion, see at least Nagase figures.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ikeda discloses the circumferential sipe 3 has a first end communicating with one of the axial grooves and a second end terminating within the each of the blocks to have a terminating end.
[AltContent: textbox (First end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Sub-circumferential sipe)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second end)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Each of the blocks is provided with a sub-circumferential sipe, the sub-circumferential sipe communicates with another one of the axial grooves located on a side opposite to the axial groove communicating with the first end of the circumferential sipe, and extends therefrom in the tire circumferential direction to terminate within the each of the blocks to have a terminating end. As to the shortest distance between the terminating end of the circumferential sipe and the terminating end of the sub-circumferential sipe is 2.0 mm or less. Ikeda discloses a total length of the circumferential sipes L is ≥ 0.5 l, where l is the block length. And where doing so improves block wear, see at least page 2 line 54 – page 3 line 4. It being considered, as a matter of routine experimentation would form the circumferential sipes in the claimed manner with the intent of enhancing the durability of the block. It being noted Ikeda explicitly discloses forming a circumferential and sub-circumferential having a distance between the terminating ends. Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ikeda does not explicitly disclose the sub-circumferential sipe is provided with a chamfered portion, and the chamfered portion of the sub-circumferential sipe is connected with the chamfered portion of the circumferential sipe. However, one would do so as a matter of routine experimentation since, as previously discussed, Poque discloses the use of chamfers provides a benefit of increasing the volume of the sipe which has a positive effect of noise reduction. Thus, forming the chamfers in the claimed manner would reasonably and predictably provide Poque’s benefit.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (inclined to a second side opposite to the first side with respect to the tire circumferential direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (portion extending obliquely from the terminating end)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, modified Ikeda discloses the circumferential sipe includes a portion extending obliquely from the terminating end thereof to a first side with respect to the tire circumferential direction, and the sub-circumferential sipe is inclined to a second side opposite to the first side with respect to the tire circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ikeda discloses forming the sipe depth to be 50% to 90% of the depth D3 of a main groove 5, see Nagase page 17 paragraph 6 – (construed as the circumferential sipe has the maximum depth in the range from 50% to 100% of the maximum height of the each of the blocks). It being considered under a broadest reasonable interpretation a depth of a main groove is equal to a height of a block land portion. Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 10, 17, modified Ikeda discloses in a cross section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the circumferential sipe, the chamfered portion includes an inclined surface extending obliquely with respect to a normal line of the tire from a ground contact surface of the each of the blocks, at least Poque figure 2. And the inclined surface has a width that is 1.5 times larger than the normal width of the sipe, see Poque [0009]. A normal width of the circumferential sipe is less than 3.0 mm, see Ikeda page lines 48-54. It being readily seen for a sipe width of 1 mm that a chamfer width would be 1.5 mm – (overlaps in the range from 0.5 to 2.0 mm in a plan view of the ground contact surface). Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ikeda discloses the chamfered portion has a chamfer depth in the range from 0.5 to 2.0 mm, see Nagase page 17 paragraph 7. Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claims 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (EP 0469815 A2 – of record), in view of at least one of Poque et al. (EP 0213452 A2 – of record), or Nagase (JP 6575649 B2 – of record), in view of Yoshida (US 2016/0144666 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kitani (US 2018/0186193 A1 – of record).
Regarding claims 9, 16, modified Ikeda does not explicitly disclose the claimed angle. Kitani discloses a circumferential sipe 30 having bent portions with an included angle θ3 - (construed as an angle between the sub-circumferential sipe and the portion of the circumferential sipe extending obliquely to the first side) of 120° by example 6, see Table 2 – (overlaps an angle of 90 to 135 degrees). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Ikeda’s sipes to have the claimed angles as taught by Kitani to provide the tread with a means for improved on ice performance. Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claims 1-4, 8, 11, 14-15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwaki et al. (US 2010/0224297 A1), in view of at least one of Poque et al. (EP 0213452 A2 – of record), or Nagase (JP 6575649 B2 – of record), in view of Yoshida (US 2016/0144666 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kiwaki discloses a tire having a tread portion comprising: a plurality of lateral grooves 5 – (construed as axial grooves); a plurality of blocks 7 separated by the plurality of axial grooves; and a block row including the plurality of blocks, wherein each of the blocks is provided with one circumferential sipe 9A, the circumferential sipe extends in a tire circumferential direction so as to communicate with at least one of the axial grooves and has at least one bent portion bent locally, see at least FIG. 1.
The tread portion includes a first tread edge (taken as the rightmost edge of FIG. 1), a second tread edge (taken as the leftmost edge of FIG. 1), a plurality of circumferential grooves 3 each extending continuously in the tire circumferential direction between the first tread edge and the second tread edge, and a plurality of land regions S, M, C separated by the circumferential grooves, see at least FIG. 1. The circumferential grooves include a first shoulder circumferential groove located closest to the first tread edge among the circumferential grooves and a first crown circumferential groove located between the first shoulder circumferential groove and a tire equator CL, see at least FIG. 1.
The land regions include a middle area M – (construed as a first middle land region) between the first shoulder circumferential groove and the first crown circumferential groove, the first middle land region is the block row, the axial grooves include a plurality of first middle axial grooves, see at least FIG. 1.
Kiwaki does not explicitly disclose the use of chamfers, or the middle axial grooves orientation.
Poque discloses it is common to form sipes 5 to have openings 6 – (construed as chamfers). This being beneficial for increasing the volume of the sipe which has a positive effect of noise reduction, see at least [0017]. Thus, one would form at least one of the edges of Ikeda’s circumferential sipes with a chamfered portion to provide the tread with reduced noise.
Nagase discloses chamfering 14 reduces the actual contact area of a land portion 8 and increases the contact pressure of the land portion 8. As a result, the land portion 8 has improved drainage performance, and in particular, improved steering stability performance on wet road surfaces during high-speed traveling, see at least page 17 paragraph 7. Thus, one would form at least one of the edges of Ikeda’s circumferential sipes with a chamfered portion to provide the tread with improved steering stability performance on wet road surfaces during high-speed traveling.
Yoshida discloses a tread pattern having middle lateral grooves 20 – (construed as first middle axial grooves) which extend from and connects to circumferential extending main grooves 3 – (construed as a first crown circumferential groove) and 4 – (construed as a first shoulder circumferential groove). The grooves 20 are further arranged such that each groove consists of an outer portion – (construed as a first groove portion) and an inner portion – (construed as a second groove portion). The outer portion/ first groove portion communicates with the circumferential grooves 4/first shoulder circumferential grooves and extends linearly and obliquely with respect to a tire axial direction.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Shoulder groove)][AltContent: textbox (Crown groove)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inner portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outer portion)]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And the inner portion/ second groove portion communicates with the circumferential grooves 3/first crown circumferential grooves and extends linearly and obliquely with respect to a tire axial direction, see at least FIG 1. This being beneficial for improving on-ice performance by discharging the ice introduced therein using tire rotation, see [0061]. Thus, one would form Ikeda’s axial grooves in the claimed orientation with an expectation of increasing the on-ice properties of the tread.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwaki’s tread pattern to have chamfered sipes as taught by Poque or Nagase and have the middle axial groove orientation of Yoshida to provide the tread with aforementioned benefits.
Regarding claims 2, 3, modified Kiwaki discloses the chamfered portion is formed over the entire length of the circumferential sipe; and wherein each of the edges of the circumferential sipe on both sides thereof is provided with the chamfered portion, see at least Nagase figures.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kiwaki discloses the circumferential sipe completely crosses the respective block in the tire circumferential direction, see at least Kiwaki FIG 1.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kiwaki discloses forming the sipe depth to be 50% to 90% of the depth D3 of a main groove 5, see Nagase page 17 paragraph 6 – (construed as the circumferential sipe has the maximum depth in the range from 50% to 100% of the maximum height of the each of the blocks). It being considered under a broadest reasonable interpretation a depth of a main groove is equal to a height of a block land portion. Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kiwaki discloses the chamfered portion has a chamfer depth in the range from 0.5 to 2.0 mm, see Nagase page 17 paragraph 7. Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kiwaki discloses the blocks include a plurality of first middle blocks arranged in the first middle land region M, each of the first middle blocks 9A is provided with a plurality of first middle axial sipes 11A each extending in a tire axial direction from the first shoulder circumferential groove 3 or the first crown circumferential groove 3, and each of the first middle axial sipes terminates without communicating with the circumferential sipe in each of the respective first middle blocks, see at least Kiwaki FIG 1.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kiwaki discloses the tread portion has a tread portion position for mounting the tire on a vehicle, the tread portion position being an inner side or an outer side of the tire with respect to the vehicle, and the first tread edge (taken as the rightmost edge of FIG. 1) is located on the outer side of the tire when the tire is mounted on the vehicle, see at least Kiwaki FIG 1.
Regarding claim 20, modified Kiwaki discloses the first middle axial sipes 11A include outer first middle axial sipes (taken as the sipes on the rightmost side of the block) and inner first middle axial sipes (taken as the sipes on the leftmost side of the block), each of the outer first middle axial sipes communicates with the first shoulder circumferential groove and extends in a zigzag shape, and each of the inner first middle axial sipes communicates with the first crown circumferential groove and extends in the tire axial direction linearly and obliquely with respect to the tire axial direction, see at least Kiwaki FIG 1.
Claims 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwaki et al. (US 2010/0224297 A1), in view of at least one of Poque et al. (EP 0213452 A2 – of record), or Nagase (JP 6575649 B2 – of record), in view of Yoshida (US 2016/0144666 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kitani (US 2018/0186193 A1 – of record).
Regarding claims 9, 16, modified Kiwaki does not explicitly disclose the claimed angle. Kitani discloses a circumferential sipe 30 having bent portions with an included angle θ3 - (construed as an angle between the sub-circumferential sipe and the portion of the circumferential sipe extending obliquely to the first side) of 120° by example 6, see Table 2 – (overlaps an angle of 90 to 135 degrees). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Kiwaki’s sipes to have the claimed angles as taught by Kitani to provide the tread with a means for improved on ice performance. Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwaki et al. (US 2010/0224297 A1), in view of at least one of Poque et al. (EP 0213452 A2 – of record), or Nagase (JP 6575649 B2 – of record), in view of Yoshida (US 2016/0144666 A1), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Tagashira et al. (EP 0602989 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 21, modified Kiwaki does not explicitly disclose the claimed tread groove angles.
Tagashira discloses a pneumatic tire having an improved tread groove capable of reducing an increase in conicity force with wear.
The tread portion is configured as best depicted in Fig. 2, having circumferential grooves 3 and axial grooves 4. And a first tread edge – (E on the left side), a second tread edge– (E on the right side), a plurality of circumferential grooves 3A, 3B each extending continuously in the tire circumferential direction between the first tread edge and the second tread edge. A plurality of land regions BS, BM separated by the circumferential grooves, the circumferential grooves include a first shoulder circumferential groove 3B located closest to the first tread edge among the circumferential grooves. A first crown circumferential groove 3A located between the first shoulder circumferential groove and a tire equator C, the land regions include a first middle land region BM between the first shoulder circumferential groove and the first crown circumferential groove. The first middle land region BM is a block row. Axial grooves 4 include a plurality of first middle axial grooves.
The grooves are further configured such that the axial groove walls 10 have a main portion 11, inclined at a smaller angle than that of the circumferential grooves 3, see at least Col 5 lines 2-5, Figs 4-5 – (construed as the first shoulder circumferential groove has a groove wall having an angle with respect to a tire normal line thereof larger than an angle with respect to a tire normal line of a groove wall of each of the first middle axial grooves). Tagashira discloses such grooves contribute to reduction of noise, see at least Col 5 lines 34-43 and 54-58.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Kiwaki’s grooves to have the claimed angles as taught by Tagashira to provide the tread with a means for reducing noise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record:
Kiwaki (US 2010/0224297 A1) which discloses a tire tread pattern to include a plurality of blocks rows delimited by a plurality of axially and circumferentially extending grooves. And the plurality of block rows is configured to have a circumferential sipe disposed thereon.
Tagashira et al. (EP 0602989 A1) which discloses grooves are configured such that the axial groove walls have a main portion, inclined at a smaller angle than that of the circumferential grooves.
However, neither Kiwaki or Tagashira teaches or reasonably suggest forming the tread pattern to have the claimed structures of an angle of the groove wall of the first shoulder circumferential groove with respect to the tire normal line is in a range from 10 to 15 degrees, and the angle of the groove wall of each of the first middle axial grooves with respect to the tire normal line is in a range from 1 to 4 degrees.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749