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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 08/19/2025. Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-16 are currently pending for examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagayasu (US 2011/0315290).
Regarding claim 1, Nagayasu discloses a tire (title) having a sipe (1), wherein the sipe (1) is a three-dimensional sipe extending radially inwardly into the tire from a tread surface (10) of the tire (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0029]; [0032]), wherein the sipe (1) includes a horizontal undulating portion having a plurality of horizontal midpoint portions and a plurality of horizontal peak portions (see Modified Figure 1 below). Nagayasu further discloses that the sipe (1) includes a radial undulating portion which is formed by protrusions (2) and recesses (3) that give the sipe (1) its three-dimensional shape and which create a vertical amplitude in the depth direction of the sipe (1) (see Fig. 2; [0031]-[0032]). Furthermore, Nagayasu discloses that the protrusions (2) and recesses (3) are only placed on planar portions of the sipe (1) where the horizontal midpoint portions are located (see Modified Figure 1 below; [0032]). Therefore, a vertical amplitude VA2 in each of the plurality of horizontal peak portions would be zero because none of the horizontal peak portions include the protrusions (2) and recesses (3) that give the sipe (1) its three-dimensional shape, and a vertical amplitude VA1 in each of the plurality of horizontal midpoint portions would be greater than zero since each of the horizontal midpoint portions include the protrusions (2) and recesses (3). Thus, Nagayasu reads on the limitation that any vertical amplitude VA1 is greater than any vertical amplitude VA2. Nagayasu further discloses that the sipe (1) includes a radially outer portion that intersects the tread surface (10), wherein the radially outer portion has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the radial undulating portion (see Modified Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Nagayasu
PNG
media_image2.png
488
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Nagayasu
Regarding claim 3, Nagayasu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Nagayasu discloses that the vertical amplitude VA2 is equal to 0 mm, and the vertical amplitude VA2 is less than the vertical amplitude VA1. Thus, the vertical amplitude VA2 disclosed by Nagayasu reads on the claimed range of between 0.00 mm and the value of the vertical amplitude VA1.
Regarding claim 6, Nagayasu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Nagayasu further discloses that the sipe (1) includes a radially inner portion, wherein the radially inner portion has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the radial undulating portion (see Modified Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
357
505
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Nagayasu
Regarding claim 8, Nagayasu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As can be seen in Figure 2, a period of the radial undulating portion disclosed by Nagayasu is represented by one of the protrusions (2) and recesses (3) in the sipe (1) because the protrusions (2) and recesses (3) are what give the sipe (1) its three-dimensional shape and its vertical amplitude. Thus, in the embodiment shown in Figure 2, it is clear that Nagayasu discloses that the radial undulating portion includes about 3 periods (see Fig. 2), reading on the claimed range of 1.0 to 8.0 periods.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 7, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayasu (US 2011/0315290).
Regarding claim 2, Nagayasu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Given that the radial undulating portion disclosed by Nagayasu is formed by the protrusions (2) and recesses (3), it is clear that the vertical amplitude VA1 is represented by the diameter of the protrusions (2) (see Fig. 2). Thus, since Nagayasu discloses that the protrusions (2) have a diameter of 0.5 mm to 4.0 mm ([0032]), it is clear that the vertical amplitude VA1 is also equal to 0.5 mm to 4.0 mm, encompassing the claimed range of between the value of the vertical amplitude VA2 (which is equal to 0 mm) and 1.50 mm. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Nagayasu to have satisfied the claimed range based on the encompassing range disclosed by Nagayasu.
Regarding claim 7, Nagayasu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Given that the radial undulating portion disclosed by Nagayasu is formed by the protrusions (2) and recesses (3), it is clear that a vertical period of the undulating portion is at least greater than a height of the protrusions (2). Furthermore, in the embodiment shown in Figure 2, one period of the radial undulating portion is located entirely within the top half of the sipe (1) (see Fig. 2). Thus, this period of the radial undulating portion is not greater than half of the height (H) of the sipe (1). Therefore, since Nagayasu discloses that the height of the protrusions (2) is from 0.5 mm to 3.0 mm ([0032]) and that the height (H) of the sipe (1) is equal to 6 mm ([0055]), it is clear that a vertical period of the radial undulating portion is between 0.5 mm (minimum value of the height of the protrusion) and 3.0 mm (half of the height of the sipe), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.6 mm to 3.5 mm. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Nagayasu to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by Nagayasu.
Regarding claim 10, Nagayasu discloses all of the limitations in claim 10 as set forth above for claims 1, 2, and 3, which include the same subject matter as claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Nagayasu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Nagayasu further discloses all of the limitations in claim 13 as set forth above for claim 6, which has the same subject matter as claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Nagayasu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Nagayasu further discloses all of the limitations in claim 14 as set forth above for claim 7, which has the same subject matter as claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Nagayasu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Nagayasu further discloses all of the limitations in claim 15 as set forth above for claim 8, which has the same subject matter as claim 15.
Claims 4, 9, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayasu (US 2011/0315290) in view of Fujioka (US 2017/0066290).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Nagayasu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 10, respectively. Nagayasu further discloses that the radial undulating portion contains portions that have the same thickness as the thickness of the sipe (1) (see Modified Figure 2 below). Nagayasu fails to specifically disclose, however, that the radial undulating portion has a thickness between 0.05 mm and 1.50 mm.
PNG
media_image4.png
924
652
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Nagayasu
Fujioka teaches a similar tire (title), comprising: a three-dimensional sipe (4) extending radially inwardly into the tire from a tread surface (1) of the tire (see Figs. 1, 2, and 3(a)-3(c); [0033]-[0036]), wherein the sipe (4) includes a radial undulating portion (71) that has a thickness equal to the thickness of the sipe (4) (see Fig. 3(b); [0041]). Fujioka further teaches that the sipe (4) has a thickness (W4) of 0.3 mm to 2.0 mm ([0035]), overlapping the claimed range of 0.05 mm to 1.50 mm. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Fujioka further teaches that configuring the thickness (W4) of the sipe (4) in this way helps to achieve a sufficient edge effect for the sipe ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured a thickness of the radial undulating portion disclosed by Nagayasu to be within the claimed range, as suggested by Fujioka, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would achieve a sufficient edge effect for the sipe.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Nagayasu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 10, respectively. Nagayasu fails to disclose, however, that the sipe (1) includes horizontal non-undulating portions oriented on each side of the horizontal undulating portion, wherein the horizontal non-undulating portions have a thickness that is equal to the radially outer portion thickness.
Fujioka teaches a similar tire (title), comprising: a three-dimensional sipe (4) extending radially inwardly into the tire from a tread surface (1) of the tire (see Figs. 1, 2, and 3(a)-3(c); [0033]-[0036]), wherein the sipe (4) includes a horizontal undulating portion (6) having a plurality of horizontal midpoint portions and a plurality of horizontal peak portions (see Fig. 3(a); [0036]-[0037]), wherein the sipe (4) includes horizontal non-undulating portions (7) oriented on each side of the horizontal undulating portion (6) (see Fig. 3(a); [0036]-[0037]), and wherein the horizontal non-undulating portions (7) have a thickness that is equal to the thickness of a radially outer portion of the sipe (4) (see Figs. 2 and 3(b); [0035]). Fujioka further teaches that configuring the sipe (4) with these horizontal non-undulating portions (7) help to suppress the excessive deformation of the tread ([0042]-[0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sipe disclosed by Nagayasu to have the claimed horizontal non-undulating portions, as taught by Fujioka, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would suppress the excessive deformation of the tread.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome the drawings objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/19/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As such, claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-16 stand rejected.
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 BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749