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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (JP2011-245963, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a tire having at least one land portion on a tread surface of the tire (see tire and tread, [0014], Fig. 1, 2), wherein:
at least one of the land portions comprises at least one sipe unit consisting of a pair of sipes (see Fig. 2, pair of sipes 36)
both ends of each of one sipe and the other sipe constituting the pair of sipes terminates in the land portion (see Fig. 2),
the one sipe and the other sipe are arranged opposing each other in the tire circumferential direction and have long sides extending in the tire width direction, respectively, the one sipe has, in total, only one short side, said short side extending from either end of the long side in the tire width direction to approach the other sipe side, and the other sipe has, in total, only one short side, said short side extending from the other end of the long side in the tire width direction to approach the one sipe side (see annotated Fig. 2 below wherein the long side and short side of the sipes are illustrated).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The long side and short side of the one sipe extend parallel to the long side and the short side other sipe, respectively (see Fig. 2). The one sipe and other sipe are clearly offset in the tire width direction as shown in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 3, the angle between the long side and the short side is greater than 90 degrees (see Fig. 2; [0027]).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the short sides extend along the circumferential direction (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 14, the one sipe and other sipe are congruent with each other (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 6, 16-18, the long side of the sipe is clearly illustrated with great particularity as having a length that is slightly greater than the length of the short side--this long/short length ratio is clearly well within the 1 to 15 ratio range. Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, the pair of sipes are clearly illustrated with great particularity as having a length of the long side that is slightly greater than the length of the short side and with a narrow diagonal 26 passing between the one sipe and other sipe such that the circumferential length of the sipe unit about the same size as the widthwise length of the sipe unit--this ratio falling well within the 0.1 to 2.6 range. Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 8, a plurality of the sipe units are arranged adjacent to each other in the tire circumferential direction to form a sipe unit row and the short sides extend on a same straight line (see Fig. 2).
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 6, 7, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (JP2011-245963, with English machine translation) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Rittweger (EP 2862729, with English machine translation).
Regarding claims 6 and 16-18, Takahashi's disclosure is considered to anticipate the limitations; however, if insufficient, 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 long and short side length ratios as claimed since (1) Takahashi clearly illustrates with great particularity the long side as having a length that is slightly greater than the length of the short side with long/short ratio well within the claimed 1 to 15 range; and (2) Rittweger, similarly directed towards a tire having closed sipes, teaches providing the sipes with long and short sides wherein the long side has length S of 5 to 15 mm and the short sides have length of 2 to 10 mm to make it possible to optimize the effective grip edge for the transmission of circumferential and axial forces in the relative area ([0008,0016,0018]), said ranges suggesting a length/width ratio of 0.5 to 7.5 (5/10 to 15/2).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Takahashi's disclosure is considered to anticipate the limitations; however, if insufficient, 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 long and short side length ratios as claimed since (1) Examiner notes that the sipe unit length and width are slightly greater than the short side length and long side length and Takahashi clearly illustrates the sipe units with great particularity as having a length of the long side that is slightly greater than the length of the short side and with a narrow diagonal 26 passing between the one sipe and other sipe such that the circumferential length/widthwise length of the sipe unit ratio falls well within the 0.1 to 2.6 range, and (2) Rittweger, similarly directed towards a tire having closed sipes, teaches providing the sipes with long and short sides wherein the long side has length S of 5 to 15 mm and the short sides have length of 2 to 10 mm to make it possible to optimize the effective grip edge for the transmission of circumferential and axial forces in the relative area ([0008,0016,0018]). In providing the short side of Takahashi with length of about 2 to 10 mm (corresponds to about the circumferential length of the sipe unit) and the long side with length of 5 to 15 mm (corresponds to about widthwise length of the sipe unit), the ratio would range from about 0.1 to 2, said range overlapping the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that not all claim limitations have been shown to be present in the reference. Applicant argues that Takahashi does not disclose the one sipe and other sipe are arranged offset in the tire width direction. The sipes of Takahashi's Fig. 1(a) are arranged symmetrically about a diagonal axis 26. They are not offset in the tire width direction as claimed.
Examiner disagrees. The Office action identified the one sipe and other sipe as shown by the pair of sipes 36 in Fig. 2 of Takahashi. It is readily apparent from Figure 2 that the sipes are offset in the tire width direction. Applicant's specification at paragraph [0032] states:
"In addition, in the tire 10 of this embodiment, the one sipe 6a and the other sipe 6b are preferably arranged offset in the tire width direction. In FIG. 2, the sipes 6a and 6b are arranged in such a way that, when viewed along the tire circumferential direction in the developed view of the tread surface 1, the sipes 6a and 6b overlap each other in a part in the tire width direction and are arranged in a phase shifted in the tire width direction (i.e., not overlapping in a part in the tire width direction)."
Takahashi's pair of sipes 36 have one sipe and the other sipe arranged such that when viewed along the tire circumferential direction, the sipes overlap in a part in the tire width direction and are shifted in the tire width direction such that they do not overlap in a part in the tire width direction. Compare Fig. 2a of Takahashi and Fig. 2 of the instant invention below:
Takahashi Fig. 2a
Instant Invention Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
148
118
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
429
596
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As apparent in the figures, Takahashi's sipes are offset in the tire width direction in a manner similar to that of the instant invention.
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 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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