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
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi (JP2015-101211; machine translation relied upon) in view of Tomida (WO 2020/250687; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2022/0227180 relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Miyoshi teaches a tire having a plurality of circumferential main grooves 12, sipes 18 (one of the sipes on the shoulder blocks taken to be the at least one shoulder groove), which are divided by the circumferential main groove located at the outermost side in the tire width direction and a tread edge, the sipes extend along the tire width direction, and the bottom portion of the sipes in the tire radial direction extends at an angle of preferably between 15 degrees or more, such a range fully encompassing the claimed range of 25 degrees or more, and the sipes on the tread surface extend at 0 degrees, falling within the claimed range of 5 degrees or less (machine translation at pages 2-7; figures 1-3 and 8), and that the tire comprises the shoulder land portion on both sides in the width direction of the tire, and that the sipes are inclined in the same direction at the bottom of the sipe (to one side in the circumferential direction), and on the tread surface the sipes are inclined in the same direction with respect to the tire width direction in the tire circumferential direction (inclined zigzag in both directions identically with respect to the circumferential direction) (figures 3 and 8). Miyoshi does not specifically disclose that the sipes have first and second widened sections at the bottom. In a tire similarly directed to using sipes, Tomida teaches providing sipes 5 having a first widened portion 5b1 where the groove width gradually increases and a second widened portion 5b2 where the groove width is constant (paragraphs [0081]-[0082]; figures 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide first and second widened portions at the bottom of the sipes as taught by Tomida in the tire of Miyoshi in order to improve the drainage performance when wear progresses (see Tomida at paragraph [0099]). Miyoshi does not specifically disclose that the inclination angle of the shoulder grooves is larger than 0°. Tomida teaches a specific embodiment where all of the shoulder widthwise grooves 4 extend at 0°, but that the shoulder widthwise grooves 4 are preferably inclined at an angle of 30° or less (paragraph [0050]; figure 3), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incline shoulder grooves within an angle range as taught by Tomida in the tire of Miyoshi as a known preferable angle range for shoulder widthwise grooves with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Miyoshi teaches that the sipe has a groove width at the surface of 3.0 mm or less (machine translation at page 2, last paragraph), fully encompassing the claimed range, and Suzuki teaches a surface width of the sipe of from 0.3 to 1.7 mm (machine translation at page 2), also overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a sipe width of less than 1.5 mm, because both Miyoshi teaches a range fully encompassing the claimed range and Suzuki teaches an overlapping range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Miyoshi teaches that the sipe is disposed in the region of the outermost 30% of the ground contact width in the width direction (machine translation at page 6, last paragraph; figure 7), thus teaching sipe lengths of up to 30% of the ground contact width, overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use with a length of 25% or more of a ground contact width, because both Miyoshi teaches a range overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claims 4 and 8-9, Miyoshi teaches a specific embodiment with a ground contact patch having three shoulder sipes arranged in the shoulder land portion (three shoulder blocks with one sipe each) (machine translation at page 2, third and fourth paragraphs; figure 1), as well as teaching that a plurality of sipes can be in each block (machine translation at page 3, third full paragraph), suggesting embodiments where each block has two or three sipes, resulting in six or nine shoulder sipes within the ground contact patch.
Regarding claims 5 and 10-12, Miyoshi teaches a specific embodiment with width direction grooves 14 and a plurality of shoulder block portions 16, with three blocks arranged within a contact patch of the tire (machine translation at page 2, third and fourth paragraphs; figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Miyoshi teaches a specific embodiment with one sipe in each of the shoulder blocks (figure 1), as well as teaching that a plurality of sipes can be in each block (machine translation at page 3, third full paragraph), thus teaching or suggesting embodiments where each block has two or three sipes.
Regarding claim 13, Miyoshi teaches that an extending direction of the sipes on the tread surface intersects with an extending direction of the bottom of the sipes (figures 3 and 8), therefore for the combination set forth above, the extending direction of the claimed shoulder groove on the tread surface intersects with an extending direction of the widened section.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the objections to the specification and the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the specification and the drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Miyoshi does not teach or suggest using an angle of greater than 0° for the shoulder grooves. However, as is set forth above, Tomida teaches such a configuration.
Applicant argues that Miyoshi teaches specific embodiments at 0°, 10°, and 15°, and that Miyoshi provides no teaching or suggestion of an angle of 25° or more. However, Miyoshi has specific disclosure teaching that the angle can be made 30° or more (see machine translation at page 7).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that Miyoshi and Tomida do not set out to solve the problem of worn-tire drainage performance, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues that Miyoshi’s benefit relies on narrow sipe walls interlocking, and that modifying this sipe to be a wide-bottom groove as taught by Tomida would render the invention inoperable. However, this is mere attorney argument, because no reference is made to Miyoshi indicating that the benefit relies on narrow sipe walls interlocking, and accordingly this argument is not persuasive.
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 PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 24, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749