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 10/29/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-16, and 18-19 are currently pending for examination on the merits.
Claim Objections
In light of the amendments to the claims, claims 1 and 10, 2 and 11, 4 and 12, 5 and 13, 6 and 14, 7 and 15, 8 and 16, and 18 and 19 are now substantial duplicates. As such, applicant is advised that should claims 1-2, 4-8, and 18 be found allowable, claims 10-16 and 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicates thereof, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
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 1-2, 4-8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Close et al. (WO 2018140851 with citations made from English equivalent US 2021/0331528) (Close) (of record) in view of Asayama et al. (US 2011/0005654) (Asayama) (of record) and Gaus (EP 2006124 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Close discloses a tire having a sipe (abstract), comprising: opposing tread element portions (536, 538) separated by the sipe (535), each opposing tread portion (536, 538) including a plurality of positive elements (506) and a plurality of negative elements (508) (see Fig. 5; [0063]-[0068]), wherein the plurality of positive elements (506) and the plurality of negative elements (508) include three substantially quadrilateral-shaped planar surfaces (518, 520, 522), each planar surface (518, 520, 522) being oriented relative to another planar surface by an angle of 90 degrees (see Fig. 5; [0064]-[0065]). In describing a sipe blade (100) that can be used to form the sipe (535) ([0032]; [0068]), Close further discloses that the corresponding planar surfaces (118, 120, 122) of the sipe blade (100) meet at a rounded terminal portion (see Fig. 1A; [0045]), wherein the sipe blade (100) includes a radially outer zig-zag portion (101) (see Fig. 1A; [0031]), and wherein the sipe blade (100) includes a radially inner three-dimensional portion (102) radially inward of the radially outer zig-zag portion (101) (see Fig. 1A; [0031]). Therefore, it is clear that the sipe (535) formed by the sipe blade (100) would also include a corresponding rounded terminal portion, radially outer zig-zag portion, and radially inner three-dimensional portion. Close fails to disclose, however, that the sipe (535) includes a radially inner zig-zag portion radially inward of the radially inner three-dimensional portion, wherein the radially inner zig-zag portion includes radially-extended peaks and valleys.
Asayama teaches a similar tire (title), comprising: a tread block (4) with a sipe (5) (see Fig. 1; [0041]-[0042]), wherein the sipe (5) is formed by a sipe blade (10) (see Fig. 6; [0048]). Asayama further teaches that the sipe blade includes a radially outer zig-zag portion (10c), a radially inner three-dimensional portion (10b) radially inward of the radially outer zig-zag portion (10c), and a radially inner zig-zag portion (10c) radially inward of the radially inner three-dimensional portion (10b) (see Fig. 6; [0055]), wherein the radially inner zig-zag portion (10c) includes radially-extended peaks and valleys (see Fig. 6). Asayama further teaches that the sipe (5) formed from this sipe blade (10) has the effect of ensuring sufficient space for water removal in the center of the sipe, reinforcing an edge effect in early and late stages of wear, and generally increasing ice performance ([0054]).
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 Close to have the claimed radially inner zig-zag portion, as taught by Asayama, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would ensure sufficient space for water removal in the center of the sipe, reinforce an edge effect in early and late stages of wear, and generally increase ice performance.
Modified Close still fails to disclose, however, that the peaks and valleys of the radially inner zig-zag portion (Asayama: 10c) decrease in size as the peaks and valleys extend radially inwardly.
Gaus teaches a similar tire (title), comprising a tread block (1) with a sipe (3) (see Fig. 1; [0013]). Gaus further teaches that the sipe (3) includes a zig-zag portion with peaks and valleys, wherein the peaks and valleys of the zig-zag portion decrease in size as the peaks and valleys extend radially inwardly (see Figs. 1-3; [0014]). Gaus further teaches that configuring the sipe (3) in this way helps to prevent tearing and the formation of cracks at the base of the sipe (3) ([0003]-[0005]; [0009]).
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 modified Close such that the peaks and valleys of the radially inner zig-zag portion decrease in size as the peaks and valleys extend radially inwardly, as taught by Gaus, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent tearing and the formation of cracks at the base of the sipes.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, modified Close discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 10, respectively. Modified Close further discloses that the radially outer zig-zag portion (Close: 101) includes radially-extended peaks (Close: 114) and valleys (Close: 116) (Close: see Fig. 1A; [0040]).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, modified Close discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 10, respectively. Modified Close further discloses that the radially inner three-dimensional portion (Close: 102) includes a first row of elements (Close: 106, 108) and a second row of elements (Close: 106, 108) (see Modified Figure 1A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1A, Close
Regarding claims 5 and 13, modified Close discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 4 and 12, respectively. Asayama further teaches that the radially inner zig-zag portion (Asayama: 10c) includes radially-extended peaks and valleys, wherein a terminal portion of each positive element of the inner three-dimensional portion (Asayama: 10b) is connected to and forms a part of the radially-extended peaks of the radially inner zig-zag portion (Asayama: 10c) (see Modified Figure 6 below). Therefore, since modified Close includes the teachings from Asayama regarding the radially inner zig-zag portion, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Close to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 5.
PNG
media_image2.png
500
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 6, Asayama
Regarding claims 6-8 and 14-16, modified Close discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 10, respectively. Gaus further teaches that the peaks and valleys of the zig-zag portion decrease continuously in the transition section (Gaus: B), which has a radial extent of up to 40% of the depth (Gaus: PT) of the sipe (Gaus: 3) (Gaus: see Figs. 2 and 3; [0014]). Gaus further teaches that the peaks and valleys have a maximum amplitude (Gaus: a) between 1.0 mm and 25 mm at the top of the section (Gaus: B) and a minimum amplitude of 0 mm at the bottom of the section (Gaus: B) (Gaus: see Figs. 2 and 3; [0013]-[0014]). Furthermore, given that the depth (Gaus: PT) of the sipe (Gaus: 3) is between 8 mm and 30 mm (Gaus: [0014]), the radial extent of the section (Gaus: B) can be calculated to be between 3.2 mm (0.4*8) and 12 mm (0.4*30). Thus, given these values, Gaus necessarily teaches that the peaks are biased from a centerline of the sipe by an angle between about 4.8 degrees (arctan(1/12)) and about 82.7 degrees (arctan(25/3.2)) (see Modified Figure 3 below), encompassing the claimed values of 15 degrees, 14 to 16 degrees, and 12 to 18 degrees. 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, since modified Close includes the teachings from Gaus regarding the decreasing nature of the radially inner zig-zag portion, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Close to have satisfied the limitations in claims 6-8 and 14-16 based on the encompassing range taught by Gaus.
PNG
media_image3.png
574
932
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3, Gaus
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Close et al. (WO 2018140851 with citations made from English equivalent US 2021/0331528) (Close) (of record) in view of Asayama et al. (US 2011/0005654) (Asayama) (of record) and Gaus (EP 2006124 with English Machine Translation) (of record) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Yoshikawa (US 2015/0013865).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, modified Close discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 10, respectively. Modified Close fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the radially inner zig-zag portion radially-extended peaks extend distally past the positive element terminal portion by an offset distance between 18% and 22% of the distance of the radially-extended peaks from a centerline of the sipe (Close: 535).
Yoshikawa teaches a similar tire (title), comprising: a sipe (6) which includes a radially inner zig-zag portion (11) positioned radially inward of a perpendicular portion (10) of the sipe (6) (see Fig. 3; [0061]-[0062]). Yoshikawa further teaches that a peak (Q2) of the radially inner zig-zag portion (11) is positioned at a distance (W2) from a point (P) between 0 and 1/3 times the depth (D) of the sipe (6) (see Fig. 3; [0084]). Similarly, Yoshikawa teaches that a positive element terminal portion (Q1) positioned radially outward of the peak (Q2) is positioned at a distance (W1) from the point (P) between 0 and 1/3 times the depth (D) (see Fig. 3; [0084]). Yoshikawa further teaches that the peak (Q2) can extend distally past the positive element terminal portion (Q1) (see Inventive Example 1-2 in Table 1-1). Furthermore, given the above values, it is clear that Yoshikawa teaches that an offset distance (W2-W1) between the peak (Q2) and the terminal portion (Q1) can be between 0% (((0.33D-0.33D)/0.33D)*100) and 100% (((0.33D-0)/0.33D)*100) of the distance (W2), encompassing the claimed range of 18% to 22%. 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. Yoshikawa further teaches that configuring the distances (W1, W2) in this way helps to suppress deformation and leaning of the land portion (3) in which the sipe (6) is formed while also making it easy to remove the tire from the tire mold after vulcanization ([0085]-[0086]).
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 offset distance between the radially inner zig-zag portion radially extended peaks and the positive element terminal portion to be within the claimed range, as suggested by Yoshikawa, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help to suppress deformation and leaning of the land portion in which the sipe is formed while also making it easy to remove the tire form the tire mold after vulcanization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/29/2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments against the combination of Close, Asayama, and Gaus, examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, applicant argues that only the use of improper hindsight reasoning would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the three references in order to reach the claimed limitations because Close, Asayama, and Gaus teach different styles of sipes and are directed toward solving different problems. However, examiner notes that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, contrary to applicant’s assertions, each of Close Asayama, and Gaus teach similarly styled, three-dimensional sipes (Close: title; abstract; Asayama: see Figs. 1, 5-6, 10-11; Gaus: title; abstract). What’s more, each of the references have overlapping objectives. For instance, Close discloses that an object of the invention is to improve the traction of the tire in icy or snowy conditions, while also keeping the manufacturing method of the sipes in consideration (Close: [0027]-[0029]; [0033]; [0089]). Asayama is also concerned with improving the traction of the tire on icy roads while also improving the molding method of the sipe (Asayama: [0024]-[0025]; [0028]; [0047]-[0049]), and Gaus is directed toward the durability of the sipe as well as its manufacturing method (Gaus: [0003]; [0005]; [0015]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have clearly viewed each of these references as analogous art and would, hence, have been motivated to look to these references for potential improvements. Indeed, the above rejection points out the clear motivations to combine the elements of Close, Asayama, and Gaus that lead to what is claimed. Namely, Asayama teaches the benefit of increased ice performance for the radially inner zig-zag portion (Asayama: [0054]), and Gaus teaches that decreasing the size of the peaks and valleys of the radially inner zig-zag portion leads to the prevention of cracks (Gaus: [0003]-[0005]; [0009]). Therefore, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success in combining Close, Asayama, and Gaus based only on knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, applicant’s arguments based on improper hindsight are not persuasive. Examiner also emphasizes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton," and “a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle,” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). Thus, it is well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the various elements in Close, Asayama, and Gaus to lead to what is claimed based on the motivations to combine noted above.
Regarding applicant’s arguments based on newly added claims 18 and 19, examiner notes that the new grounds of rejection over Close, Asayama, Gaus, and Yoshikawa set forth above still makes obvious the newly claimed limitations.
As such, claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-16, and 18-19 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