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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 1, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen (US Pat. No. 4,397,344) in view of Maehara (US Pub. No. 2014/0130949) and Cortes (US Pub. No. 2002/0092591).
Regarding claim 1, Goergen teaches a heavy-duty tire (title) (for a heavy-duty vehicle for urban use is an intended use which does not further limit the claim) comprising a tread 14, the tread having a transverse width and comprising cuts that delimit raised elements, every cut having a thickness and a depth and being delimited by two walls that intersect the tread surface along two edge corners, each wall forming a taper angle with a line perpendicular to the tread surface, wherein the tread comprises at least two zigzag grooves 28, wherein each zigzag groove is made up of alternating longitudinal portions, and oblique portions, each oblique portion having the same angle with the longitudinal direction at least equal to 15 degrees, and no zigzag groove leads out at a transverse end of the tread surface (the zigzag groove 28 being taken to end near the tread edge, and a lateral groove as annotated and short wide grooves 40 are the grooves that extend beyond the tread edge) (column 2, line 3 – column 3, line 39; figure 2; annotated figure 2 below), as well as teaching narrow grooves 36 parallel to at least two zigzag grooves having a width of 2 percent or less than the tread width (column 3, lines 6-11; figure 2). Goergen does not specifically disclose the depth of the grooves. Maehara teaches using a main groove depth of preferably from 10 to 25 mm (paragraph [0052]), such a depth being completely encompassed by the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a groove depth as taught by Maehara in the tire of Goergen as a preferable main groove depth for a heavy duty tire (see Maehara at paragraphs [0001] and [0052]). Goergen does not specifically disclose that the taper angle of each wall that delimits each zigzag groove is at least equal to 10 degrees. Cortes teaches using an angle of greater than 90 degrees and smaller than 135 degrees between a wall 22, 23 and a tread outer surface 12 (claimed taper angle of greater than 0 to less than 45 degrees, overlapping the claimed range) (paragraph [0016]; figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a taper angle as taught by Cortes in the tire of Goergen in order to decrease the likelihood that debris will become lodged in the grooves (see Cortes at paragraph [0006]). “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).
PNG
media_image1.png
1494
1154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Goergen teaches a specific embodiment where each oblique portion has a measured angle of about 29 degrees (see annotated figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 3, Goergen teaches a minimum tire size of 7.50R15TR (column 2, line 15), such a tire having an outside diameter D of 808 mm (Tire diameter = Wheel diameter + 2 * Section height) and an outer circumference of about 2538 mm, thus for such a tire the claimed longitudinal length L is about 10.5 to 42 mm. Goergen also teaches that the distance that each groove 28 extends in the circumferential direction is preferably equal to between one-half and twice the distance which it extends in the oblique direction (column 2, lines 57-61). The depicted embodiment has the distances in the circumferential and oblique directions approximately equal (see figures 1-2), and the depicted embodiment displays about 1/3 of the circumference of the tire (see figure 1), or about 846 mm (2548/3), as well as depicting that this tread length is about 15 oblique or straight segments, thus resulting in a length L which is about 56.4 mm (846/15). Accordingly, embodiments where the grooves 28 extend circumferentially from about one-half of the oblique distance, resulting in a length of 28.2 mm (56.4/2) to about 74.4% of the oblique distance of 42 mm (56.4 * 0.744) would fall within the claimed range.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (JP2016-011027; machine translation relied upon) in view of Goergen (US Pat. No. 4,397,344) and Cortes (US Pub. No. 2002/0092591).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano teaches a tire (title) (for a heavy-duty vehicle for urban use is an intended use which does not further limit the claim) comprising a tread 2, the tread having a transverse width and comprising cuts that delimit raised elements, every cut having a thickness and a depth and being delimited by two walls that intersect the tread surface along two edge corners, each wall forming a taper angle with a line perpendicular to the tread surface, wherein the tread comprises at least two zigzag grooves (see shaded groove on annotated figure 1 below), wherein each zigzag groove is made up of alternating longitudinal portions (specific embodiments in figures 1 and 2 are depicted with longitudinal portions, and inventive examples 1 and 3-12 all use a 0 degree angle θ1), and oblique portions, each oblique portion having the same angle with the longitudinal direction preferably 55 to 75 degrees, and no zigzag groove leads out at a transverse end of the tread surface (see annotated figure 1 – the top and bottom ends of the zigzag grooves do not lead out at a transverse end of the tread surface) (machine translation at pages 2-3; figures 1-2; annotated figure 1 below), with specific embodiments having a groove depth of 8 mm (machine translation at page 5). Nakano does not specifically disclose sipes parallel to the zigzag grooves. Goergen teaches isolated blades (sipes) or narrow grooves 36 parallel to at least two zigzag grooves having a width of 2 percent or less than the tread width may be used (column 3, lines 6-11; figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use sipes as taught by Goergen parallel to and between the zigzag grooves in the tire of Nakano as a known optional feature to increase the edge effect of the tire. Nakano does not specifically disclose that the taper angle of each wall that delimits each zigzag groove is at least equal to 10 degrees. Cortes teaches using an angle of greater than 90 degrees and smaller than 135 degrees between a wall 22, 23 and a tread outer surface 12 (claimed taper angle of greater than 0 to less than 45 degrees, overlapping the claimed range) (paragraph [0016]; figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a taper angle as taught by Cortes in the tire of Nakano in order to decrease the likelihood that debris will become lodged in the grooves (see Cortes at paragraph [0006]).
PNG
media_image2.png
1700
2200
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nakano teaches that θ2 is larger than θ1 (machine translation at page 3), thus teaching an overlapping range.
Regarding claim 4, Nakano teaches that the longitudinal portions of the zigzag grooves enter the contact patches at different times when the tire is in operation (figure 1; annotated figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Nakano teaches that the width Wa which extends approximately to the ends of the zigzag grooves, has a width of from 60% to 90% of the tread width (machine translation at page 4; figure 1; annotated figure 1 above), therefore for embodiments where Wa is from 60% to just under 80% of the tread width, the claimed distance De will be at most equal to 40% of the tread width as claimed.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen in view of Maehara and Cortes or Nakano in view of Goergen and Cortes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cambon (US Pub. No. 2016/0297252).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Goergen and Nakano do not specifically disclose continuing at least one of the zigzag grooves radially toward the inside from its cut bottom by a sipe, or continuing at least one sipe radially inside by a groove. Cambon teaches continuing a groove 11 on the inside by a sipe 13’ and a sipe 13 on the inside by a groove 12 (paragraphs [0050]-[0052]; figures 1, 2a and 2b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to continue at least one groove on the inside by a sipe and at least one sipe on the inside by a groove as taught by Cambon in the tire of Goergen (combined) or Nakano (combined) in order to limit the onset of even wear while at the same time still having suitable drainage throughout the service life of the tread (see Cambon at paragraph [0063]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen in view of Maehara and Cortes or Nakano in view of Goergen and Cortes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berthier (WO2019/229371; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2021/0229502 relied upon).
Regarding claim 10, Goergen and Nakano do not specifically disclose the volumetric void ratio of the tread. Berthier teaches, in a tire directed to heavy duty vehicles (paragraph [0002]), a more preferable range of total voids volume ratio of at most equal to 10% (paragraph [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a voids volume ratio as taught by Berthier in the tire of Goergen (combined) or Nakano (combined) as a preferable range of voids volume ratio of a heavy duty tire tread (see Berthier at paragraphs [0002] and [0033]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen in view of Maehara and Cortes or Nakano in view of Goergen and Cortes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cluzel (US Pat. No. 5,738,740).
Regarding claims 11-12, Goergen teaches the use of two or more belt plies 20 of reinforcing cords 22, such cords being depicted as being at an angle to the circumferential direction (column 2, lines 5-9; figure 1), but Goergen does not specify the angle of the cords. In a tire similarly directed to heavy-duty tires (column 1, lines 61-63), Cluzel teaches using working plies oriented at between 10 and 45 degrees, and an additional ply (claimed hooping layer) oriented parallel to the circumferential direction (column 1, line 63 – column 2, line 10), with a specific embodiment having the working plies 32 and 34 oriented at 22 degrees and the additional ply 33 oriented at 0 degrees (column 3, lines 12-26; figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to orient working plies and a hooping ply as taught by Cluzel in the tire of Goergen (combined) or Nakano (combined) in order to improve the endurance of the crown reinforcement of the tire (see Cluzel at column 1, lines 61-63).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of the claims over the primary reference Rittweger have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-6 over Rittweger have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims over the primary reference Goergen have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that dependent claim 5 was not rejected over Goergen, and that this subject matter has been added into claim 1, and thus this claim is patentable over Goergen. However, this claimed subject matter was previously properly rejected over Rittweger. The prior rejection was clear and proper, and at that time no rejection of the claim needed to be made over Goergen. However, due to Applicant’s amendments, the rejection over Rittweger has been traversed. Accordingly, at this time the Examiner reconsidered the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims over Goergen, and a new interpretation was made as set forth above, in which the claimed zigzag grooves do not lead out a transverse end of the tread surface. It is further noted that the claim does not affirmatively require a continuous rib at a transverse end of the tread surface.
Conclusion
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 January 15, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749