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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/12/2026 has been entered.
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, 8-9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bachmann (FR 1420278 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Bachmann discloses a tire (title), comprising: a sipe (5), wherein the sipe (5) is a three-dimensional sipe extending radially inwardly into the tire from a tread surface of the tire (see Figs. 1 and 2; fourth paragraph in [0001]), wherein the sipe (5) includes a horizontal undulating portion having a plurality of horizontal midpoint portions (12) and a plurality of horizontal peak portions (10) (see Modified Figure 1 below; first paragraph in [0002]). Bachmann further discloses that the sipe (5) includes a radial undulating portion which is formed by projections (6) that give the sipe (5) its three-dimensional shape and create a vertical amplitude in the depth direction of the sipe (5) (see Figs. 1 and 3-6; first paragraph in [0002]). Furthermore, Bachmann discloses that the projections (6) are only placed in areas corresponding to the horizontal midpoint portions (12), not in areas corresponding to the horizontal peak portions (10) (see Figs. 1 and 2; first paragraph in [0002]). Therefore, a vertical amplitude VA2 in each of the plurality of horizontal peak portions (10) would be zero, and a vertical amplitude VA1 in each of the plurality of horizontal midpoint portions (12) would be greater than zero. Thus, Bachmann reads on the limitation that any vertical amplitude VA1 is greater than any vertical amplitude VA2. Bachmann further discloses that the sipe (5) includes a radially outer portion (8) that intersects the tread surface (see Fig. 2; first paragraph in [0002]), wherein a thickness of the radially outer portion (8) can be greater than a thickness of the radial undulating portion (see Fig. 4; second paragraph [0002]). Bachmann further discloses that the sipe includes a centerline CL, wherein the radial undulating portion forms a wave, and wherein the centerline CL is the same as a midline of the wave so that an amplitude of the wave is half of the vertical amplitude VA1 of the radial undulating portion (see Modified Figure 6 below; second paragraph in [0002]). Thus, Bachmann reads on all of the limitations in claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Bachmann
PNG
media_image2.png
528
385
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 6, Bachmann
Regarding claim 3, Bachmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Bachmann discloses that the vertical amplitude VA2 of the radial undulating portion at the horizontal peak portions (10) is equal to zero, reading on the claimed range of between 0.00 mm and the value of the vertical amplitude VA1.
Regarding claim 6, Bachmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Bachmann further discloses that the sipe (5) can include a radially inner portion that has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the radial undulating portion (see Modified Figure 4 below; second paragraph in [0002]).
PNG
media_image3.png
366
421
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4, Bachmann
Regarding claim 8, Bachmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Bachmann further discloses that the radial undulating portion includes one period of a wave shape (see Fig. 6), reading on the claimed range of 1.0 to 8.0 periods.
Regarding claim 9, Bachmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Bachmann further discloses that the sipe (5) includes horizontal non-undulating portions oriented on each side of the horizontal undulating portion (see Modified Figure 1 below), wherein the horizontal non-undulating portions have a thickness that is equal to the radially outer portion thickness (see Modified Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
446
365
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Bachmann
Regarding claim 17, Bachmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Bachmann further discloses that the radial undulating portion forms a sinusoidal wave (see Fig. 6; second paragraph in [0002]).
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, 4, 7, 10-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachmann (FR 1420278 with English Machine Translation) in view of Wada (JP 2010023586 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 2, Bachmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Bachmann discloses that the vertical amplitude VA2 of the radial undulating portion at the horizontal peak portions (10) is equal to zero. Bachmann fails to disclose, however, a specific value for the vertical amplitude VA1.
However, common vertical amplitudes for radial undulating portions in sipes are known in the art. For instance, Wada teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a sipe (30) with a horizontal undulating portion and a radial undulating portion (30A) (see Fig. 1; [0023]), wherein the radial undulating portion (30A) has a vertical amplitude (A3) in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm (see Fig. 1; [0038]), overlapping the claimed range of between the value of the vertical amplitude VA2 (zero in this case) and 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. Wada further teaches that configuring the radial undulating portion (30A) in this way allows for optimal suppression of block collapse and good ventilation ([0038]).
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 the vertical amplitude VA1 disclosed by Bachmann to be within the claimed range, as suggested by Wada, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would allow for optimal suppression of block collapse and good ventilation.
Regarding claim 4, Bachmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Bachmann further discloses that a thickness of the radial undulating portion can be about equal to the thickness of the sipe (Bachmann: 5) (see Fig. 6; second paragraph in [0002]). Bachmann fails to explicitly disclose, however, a thickness of the radial undulating portion.
However, common sipe thicknesses are known in the art. For instance, Wada teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a sipe (30) with a horizontal undulating portion and a radial undulating portion (30A) (see Fig. 1; [0023]), wherein a thickness (t1) of the sipe (30) can be equal to 0.5 mm (see Fig. 1; [0044]), suggesting the claimed range of between 0.05 mm and 1.50 mm. Wada further teaches that configuring the sipe (30) in this way helps contribute to improved performance in suppressing block collapse, ice performance, and snow performance ([0047]).
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 the thickness of the radial undulating portion disclosed by Bachmann to be within the claimed range because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to improved performance.
Regarding claim 7, Bachmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Bachmann fails to explicitly disclose, however, a value for a vertical period of the radial undulating portion.
However, common values for vertical periods of radial undulating portions are known in the art. For instance, Wada teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a sipe (30) with a horizontal undulating portion and a radial undulating portion (30A) (see Fig. 1; [0023]), wherein the radial undulating portion (30A) includes a vertical period (λ) in the range of 1.4 to 3.6 mm ([0038]), encompassing the claimed range of 1.60 mm to 3.50 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. Wada further discloses that configuring the period (λ) of the radial undulating portion in this way allows for optimal suppression of block collapse and good ventilation ([0038]).
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 the vertical period of the radial undulating portion disclosed by Bachmann to be within the claimed range, as suggested by Wada, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would allow for optimal suppression of block collapse and good ventilation.
Regarding claim 10, Bachmann in view of Wada 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 11, modified Bachmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Modified Bachmann further discloses all of the limitations in claim 11 as set forth above for claim 4, which has the same subject matter as claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, modified Bachmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Modified Bachmann 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, modified Bachmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Modified Bachmann further disclose 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, modified Bachmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Modified Bachmann 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.
Regarding claim 16, modified Bachmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Modified Bachmann further discloses all of the limitations in claim 16 as set forth above for claim 9, which has the same subject matter as claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, modified Bachmann discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Modified Bachmann further discloses all of the limitations in claim 18 as set forth above for claim 17, which has the same subject matter as claim 18.
Response to Arguments
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 13-18 stand rejected.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights