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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 19, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-2, 5-6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himuro (JP06-16016; machine translation relied upon) in view of Seta (JP2009-078654; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Himuro teaches a pneumatic tire (title) having a tread including a block-shaped land portion divided by a plurality of main grooves and a plurality of sub-grooves communicating with the main groove and in the land part, a cut having a main portion and branch portions to both sides of the main part (machine translation at paragraph [0005]). Himuro is not particularly limiting with respect to the orientation of the grooves, teaching specific embodiments of curved main grooves (figure 1), and angled to the circumferential direction zigzag main grooves (figures 2 and 3), but does not specifically disclose orienting the main grooves with portions straight in the circumferential direction. In a tire similarly having main grooves and branched sipes, Seta teaches orienting the main grooves and the main portion of the branched sipes straight in the circumferential direction (machine translation at page 4; figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create an embodiment having circumferential main grooves with parallel branched sipe main portions as taught by Seta in the tire of Himuro as a combination of elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Such teachings suggest using an embodiment of Himuro similar to figure 3 except the main grooves extending straight in the circumferential direction. For such an embodiment, there are a plurality of circumferential main grooves 5, a plurality of width direction grooves 13 connected to the circumferential main grooves, there are a plurality of connected sipes disposed on the land portions, the connected sipes have a main portion extending in a first predetermined direction and a plurality of side portions extending from the main portion to a side of the main portion at an angle with respect to the first predetermined direction and terminating within the land portion, the plurality of side portions comprise a first side portion disposed on one side of the main portion and a second side portion disposed on the other side of the main portion, and the first side portion and the second side portion are arranged alternately in the tire circumferential direction, the main portion extends in the circumferential direction, each of the plurality of side portions extends at an angle with respect to the width direction, the main portion has a first end and a second end, a first end of the main portion is connected to one of the plurality of width direction grooves, the main portion is free of connection to the one or more circumferential main grooves, the land portion comprises a plurality of rows of the connected sipes arranged in a second predetermined direction, between two adjacent rows thereof, the first end of the main portion of the connected sipe of one row is connected to one width direction groove among the plurality of width direction grooves, and the first end of the main portion of the connected sipe of the other row is connected to another width direction groove among the plurality of width direction grooves (machine translation at pages 4-5; figure 3 modified as described).
Regarding claim 2, Himuro teaches that the second end of the main portion terminates within the land portion (figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Himuro teaches that the two rows adjacent to each other in the second predetermined direction are arranged in a phase-shifted position, such that the side portion of the connected sipe of one row and the side portion of the connected sipe of the other row, are arranged alternately in the circumferential direction (figure 3).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Himuro teaches only the second end of the main portion terminates within the land portion, and that the ends are arranged alternately between two rows adjacent to each other, such that one end in the first predetermined direction of the main portion of the connecting sipe of one row terminates within the land portion, and the other end in the first predetermined direction of the main portion of the connected sipe of the other row, which is adjacent to the one row, terminates within the land portion (figure 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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: Himuro is taken to be the closest prior art of record. Himuro does not teach or suggest, in addition to the other claimed limitations, sub-sipes arranged apart from the connected sipes having a long and short side connected to each other, the long side extending in the width direction or at an angle to the width direction and facing at least one of the side portions of the connected sipes, and the short side extends in the circumferential direction and faces the main portion of one of the connected sipes, in the context of claim 21, and there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of record to modify Himuro to arrive at such a configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, in the rejection above, the combination of Himuro in view of Seta as set forth has straight circumferential and width direction grooves and circumferential land portions, such being taught by Seta, with connected sipes similar to figure 3 of Himuro except for extending straight in the circumferential direction. Such a combination reads on the newly added limitations.
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 March 23, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749