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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 25 and 26 recite the second transverse grooves as not extending over the whole width or at most over 80% of the width of the circumferential ribs in which they are located. Claim 20 has been amended to recite the second transverse grooves "extend at most over 80% of a width of the circumferential rib in which they are located" (see lines 3-4 from end of claim). Claims 25 and 26 fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 20.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 20, 21, 23-27, 29-33, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US20140283967) in view of Morikawa (JP63-159110, with English machine translation) or Kojima (US 2009/0266457).
Regarding claims 20, 25-27, Inoue discloses a car tyre having a tread comprising:
a central portion located across an equatorial plane, a first shoulder portion located towards an outer side of the tyre and a second shoulder portion located towards an inner side of the tyre (see central part with middle portions 7, 8 and shoulder portions 6, 9, Fig. 1, [0043]), wherein:
said first shoulder portion and said second shoulder portion comprise a plurality of first transverse grooves having a first end located substantially at a respective edge of the tread, having a width greater than or equal to about 4 mm and an axial extension equal to at least 50% of the width of the shoulder portion in which they are located (see shoulder lug grooves 19, 23, which extend over 50% of the width and have widths of about 4 mm, [0096], also discloses widths greater than 2mm [0016-0017]);
said two first circumferential grooves are a first circumferential groove facing towards the outer side of the tyre and a first circumferential groove facing towards the inner side of the tyre (Inoue discloses inboard/outboard shoulder main grooves 3, 5, [0043]);
said central portion has two circumferential ribs, a first and a second circumferential rib respectively, comprising a plurality of second transverse grooves (see inboard/outboard middle portions 7, 8 with sipes 11, 12 in inboard middle land 8 and sipes 17, 18 in outboard middle land 7);
said central portion comprises one second circumferential groove so as to define said first and second circumferential ribs said first circumferential rib being axially delimited by the first circumferential groove facing towards the outer side of the tyre and the second circumferential groove, said second circumferential rib being axially delimited by the first circumferential groove facing towards the inner side of the tyre and the second circumferential groove (see inboard/outboard middle land portions 7, 8 and central main groove 5).
Inoue does not expressly disclose the width of the two first circumferential grooves; 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 grooves with a minimum width of about 5 mm since Inoue discloses the grooves with widths w1 to w3 of 2 to 10% of the tread width ([0045]) and an example tread width of 123 mm ([0092])--which yields widths of 2.5 to 12.3 mm, said range overlapping the claimed range.
Inoue does not disclose the number of first transverse grooves in the first shoulder portion as lower than the number of first transverse grooves in the second shoulder portion; 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 first shoulder portion with fewer first transverse grooves in view of one of (1) Morikawa, similarly directed towards a pneumatic tire, teaches configuring the pitch number of blocks such that the pitch number increases from row to row with the minimum number being on the outer side relative to vehicle in order to reduce noise without deteriorating maneuvering stability (abstract, first paragraph); or (2) Kojima, similarly directed towards a pneumatic tire tread, teaches configuring the number of pitches on the vehicle inner side to be larger than the number of pitches on the tread outer side in order to increase block rigidity on the outer side whereby driving stability on a dry road surface is ensured ([0009]; pitches are bounded by transverse grooves, thus larger number of pitches means larger number of transverse grooves).
As to the second transverse grooves having a maximum width smaller than or equal to about 3 mm and define in said at least one circumferential rib a void-to-rubber ratio smaller than 0.06, Inoue discloses sipes having width of 0.2 to 1.5 mm ([0059]). The void area within a repeating pitch would be equal to (sipe width * sipe length) / (rib width * pitch length between sipes). Assuming the sipes extended across the rib for a conservative estimate, sipe length and rib width cancels out and the void area would be equal to sipe width / sipe spacing. For a sipe width of 0.2 mm, sipes spaced apart more than 3.3 mm would have a void ratio smaller than 0.06 (Examiner notes the sipes do not extend entirely across the ribs in Inoue, so the minimum spacing would be even smaller). Examiner notes that Inoue clearly illustrates the sipe spacing as substantially greater than the shoulder lug groove widths (see Figures) and these grooves have widths of 3.5 mm in the example ([0096]). 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 void ratio as 0.06 or smaller in view of Inoue's disclosed sipe width range and sipe arrangement in the pattern ([0059]).
As to the extensions of the second transverse grooves Inoue discloses the second transverse grooves as not extending over the entire rib width with extensions of less than 60% (Figs. 1-3 clearly illustrate a distance of less than half; also, distance L4, L5 between sipe ends is 0.2 to 0.3 times the rib width [0051,0065], thus the individual sipe extensions are about 0.35 to 0.4).
As to the void-to-rubber ratio being greater in the rib closest to the second shoulder portion (i.e., inboard middle rib), 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 void-to-rubber ratio to be greatest for the rib closest to the inner side of the tire since (1) Inoue clearly illustrates the inboard middle land with additional voids (sipes) compared to the outboard middle land (inboard has full extension and semi-open sipes whereas outboard has only semi-open sipes) and (2) Morikawa teaches increasing the pitch number from outside to inside (see Table 1) in order to reduce noise without deteriorating maneuvering stability (abstract, first paragraph), thus the void ratio would increase with higher pitch number.
Regarding claim 21, Inoue and Morikawa disclose repeating modules. 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 number of first transverse grooves on the second shoulder portion to be about twice the number of first transverse grooves on the first shoulder portion since Morikawa teaches that from row to row, the pitch number increases from 2 to less than double to reduce noise and prevent a large difference in block rigidity (second paragraph) and discloses a working example wherein the difference between shoulders is such that the pitch number in one shoulder is about twice the pitch number in the opposing shoulder (A is 100, D is 52; see Table 1).
Regarding claim 23, 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 second circumferential groove with width greater than 12 mm since Inoue configuring the main grooves with widths w1 to w3 of 2 to 10% of the tread width ([0045]) and an example tread width of 123 mm ([0092])--which yields widths of 2.5 to 12.3 mm, said range overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 24, Inoue discloses depths of 4 to 8.5 mm ([0045]), working examples of 7.5 mm ([0093,0094]).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Inoue discloses configuring the angles theta1b and theta2b as 5 to 25 degrees with respect to the axial direction (65 to 85 degrees to equator)([0057,0073]). Here, the semi-open sipes having angles theta1b and theta2b are construed as the second transverse grooves.
Regarding claim 31, Morikawa teaches pitch number of 80 and 65 in the center land rows (Table 1). Examiner takes Official Notice that is it very well known and conventional for tires to have a range of sizes including circumferences of greater than 2000 mm. Given the pitch numbers of 80 and 65 in the central ribs, this would equate to spacings of 25 and 33 mm. 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 sipes with spacings as claimed in view of Morikawa's pitch numbers and conventional tire circumference sizes.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, Examiner notes that Inoue does not disclose substantial pitch variation within the same rib. As to the differences in distances, 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 distance to be smaller for the rib closest to the inner side of the tire since Morikawa teaches increasing the pitch number from outside to inside (see Table 1) in order to reduce noise without deteriorating maneuvering stability (abstract, first paragraph), thus the distance would decrease with higher pitch number.
Regarding claim 35, the second circumferential grooves of the first circumferential rib are substantially parallel to one another (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 37, each second transverse groove of the second circumferential rib extend from a first or a second circumferential groove (see Figs. 1-3).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US20140283967) in view of Morikawa (JP63-159110, with English machine translation) or Kojima (US 2009/0266457) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Bolzoni (US 20100294409).
Regarding claim 22, 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 first circumferential groove facing towards the outer side of the tire with width smaller than the width of the first circumferential groove facing towards the inner side of the tire since Bolzoni, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches configuring the circumferential groove disposed at the axially external portion of the central portion of the tread with a smaller width than the other circumferential grooves to offer more support in this region, which is particularly stressed on a curve, so at to increase the easy drive of the tire ([0052-0053]).
Claims 38, 39, and 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US20140283967) in view of Morikawa (JP63-159110, with English machine translation) or Kojima (US 2009/0266457) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Murata (JP2001-219718, with English machine translation).
Regarding claims 38, 39, and 41, 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 first shoulder portion with third circumferential grooves as claimed since Murata, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches configuring the shoulder portions with narrow shoulder longitudinal grooves 13L, 13R to improve hydrodynamic performance , steering stability, and quietness ([0022,0025,0026]]). Murata discloses groove widths of 0.5 to 3.0 mm ([0025]). As to claim 41, the shoulder transverse grooves transverse the shoulder longitudinal narrow grooves in Murata.
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US20140283967) in view of Morikawa (JP63-159110, with English machine translation) or Kojima (US 2009/0266457) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Inoue (JP2013078984, with English machine translation).
Regarding claims 38-40, Inoue '967 does not disclose a third circumferential groove in the first shoulder portion; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have configured the first shoulder portion with a third circumferential groove as claimed since Inoue '894 discloses providing a circumferential groove in the first shoulder portion having width smaller than the outer shoulder groove (see groove 12; Inoue '984 discloses the width as 0.4 to 2.0 mm and depth as 2.0 to 6.0 mm, [0042]), said ranges overlapping the claimed ranges. One would have been motivated to improve drainage performance without excessively reducing the rigidity of the shoulder outer land portion ([0042]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34 and 36 are 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: As to claim 34, the prior art of record fails to further teach or suggest the second transverse grooves of the first circumferential rib extending from the second circumferential groove towards the equatorial plane. In Inoue, the second circumferential groove lies on the equatorial plane and thus transverse grooves can not extend towards it from the second circumferential groove. As to claim 36, the prior art of record fails to further teach or suggest the second transverse grooves as counter-inclined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the void-to-rubber ratio being greatest for a rib closest to the inner side of the tire, Applicant argues that "Morikawa was published in 1988 and, given that Inoue (filed in 2013 and published in 2014) in US2014283967 was concerned with noise reduction, it was clearly not obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the ratio as Morikawa suggests."
Examiner disagrees. It is unclear as to what Applicant's argument is based on the publishing date of the references or concern with noise reduction. The fact that one reference was published before the other reference does not render their combination nonobvious. Applicant has also not particularly pointed out why a concern for noise reduction in the references would make it not obvious to configure the ratio differences as Morkawa suggests.
Regarding the section transverse grooves extending "at most over 80% of a width of the circumferential rib in which they are located," Applicant argues that it can be seen from Fig. 2 of Inoue that the second transverse grooves 10 extend the entire width of the circumferential rib and thus does not satisfy the limitation.
Examiner disagrees. Inoue discloses semi-opened sipes 11,12 and full-opened sipes 10. Inoue's semi-opened sipes do not extend across the entire width of the circumferential rib and are considered to read on the claimed second transverse grooves. Claim 20 recites the first and second circumferential ribs as "comprising a plurality of second transverse grooves" (line 15 of claim). The claim does not preclude additional transverse grooves within the circumferential ribs (e.g., third transverse grooves that extend across the entire rib).
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 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