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 .
1) 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.
2) Applicant is advised that should claim 21 be found allowable, claim 31 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. 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).
Claims 21 and 31 have the same scope.
3) 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.
4) Claims 1, 21-26 and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaji et al (US 2019/0100059) in view of Japan 722 (JP 2001-001722) and optionally further in view of Hashimoto et al (US 2006/0169377) or Schoenmaker et al (WO 2019/035847).
Kaji et al discloses a pneumatic tire (passenger size 205/55R16) having a tread comprising blocks separated by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves [FIGURE 1]. Each block comprises sipes which have a zigzag trace in the longitudinal direction of the sipe and a zigzag trace in the depth direction of the sipe [FIGURES 1-4]. FIGURE 4 (after electronically turning the figure upside down and electronically horizontally flipping the figure 180 degrees) is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
396
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaji et al’s sipes in the above MODIFIED FIGURE 4 has substantially the same configuration as applicant’s sipe formed using the blade shown in applicant’s
FIGURE 2A. As can be seen from Kaji et al’s FIGURE 4, each of Kaji et al’s sipes comprise a key portion including a key edge portion defining an “angle KA” and a chamfer portion defining an “angle CA”, a upper parallel portion, a central parallel portion including a first radially outer central parallel portion, a second central parallel portion and a third radially inner central parallel portion, and a base portion. Kaji et al discloses:
width (sipe) = 0.1 to 1.0 mm,
depth (sipe) = 7.0 mm,
distance (tread surface to line L3) = 1.7 mm,
distance between lines L3 and L4 = 3.6 mm,
distance between line L4 and sipe bottom = 1.7 mm
angle θ = 70 to 85 degrees with respect to tread surface
apex 171 at depth of 50% sipe depth D from tread surface.
See paragraphs 40, 58-60, 63. Kaji et al teaches heel and toe wear is suppressed, braking performance and cornering performance can be secured on non-ice and snow road, and ice and snow performance on ice and snow road can be improved [paragraphs 68-73]. Kaji et al substantially discloses the claimed tire, but is silent as to offset distance O1 = 1.15 mm to 1.45 mm [claim 1] or offset distance O2 = 0.45 to 0.75 mm [claim 26].
As to claims 1, 21-26 and 31-35, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kaji et al’s pneumatic tire such that, with respect to one of Kaji et al’s sipes [FIGURES 1-5]:
offset distance O1 = 1.15 to 1.45 mm [claims 1, 31],
offset distance O2 = 0.45 to 0.75 mm [claims 21, 26],
offset distance O3 = 0.65 to 0.95 mm [claims 22, 32],
ratio O1:O2 = 13:6 (O1 = 2.2 O2) [claims 23, 33],
ratio O1:O3 = 13:8 (O1 = 1.6 O3) [claims 24, 34],
ratio O2:O3 = 6:8 (O1 = 0.75 O3) [claims 25, 35]
since (1) Kaji et al’s sipe in the pneumatic tire (passenger size 205/55R16) has a zigzag trace in the depth direction and thereby defines an amplitude in the depth direction which defines offset distance O1, offset distance O2 and offset distance O3 [FIGURES 3-4], (2) Japan 722 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 185/65R14) having tread comprising blocks comprising sipes, which have a zigzag trace in the depth direction, such that the amplitude of the sipes in the depth direction is 0.5 to
3 mm; the tire having improved performance on ice without deteriorating the steering stability on a dry road surface and having suppressed occurrence of uneven wear [FIGURES 1-4, machine translation] and optionally (3) (A) Hashimoto et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising blocks comprising sipes, which have a zigzag trace in the depth direction, such that the amplitude of the zigzag trace decreases in the depth direction wherein 50%X > W > 0 mm to obtain sufficient block stiffness and improved mold releasability [FIGURES 1-4, FIGURES 8A-8C, paragraph 55] or (B) Schoenmaker et al’s teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising blocks comprising sipes, which have a zigzag trace in the depth direction, such that the amplitude of the zigzag trace decreases in the depth direction wherein taper = [Amax - Amin]/Amax = 50-90% to improve demolding between the tread and the mold and obtain improved rigidity [FIGURES 1-2, 4-6, paragraph 32, 35].
5) Claims 2 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaji et al (US 2019/0100059) in view of Japan 722 (JP 2001-001722) and optionally further in view of Hashimoto et al (US 2006/0169377) or Schoenmaker et al (WO 2019/035847) as applied above and further in view of Berger et al (US 2011/0155293) and optionally Japan 315 (JP 10-181315).
As to claims 2 and 27, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kaji et al’s sipe such that the difference between angle KA and angle CA is 15 degrees since (1) Berger et al teaches providing a sipe for a tread of a vehicle tire such that angle A is less than 55 degrees with respect to the radial direction (the “key edge portion” having therefore an angle KA of greater than or equal to 35 degrees with respect to the tread surface [90 - 55 = 35]) and angle F is greater than 10 degrees with respect to the radial direction wherein angle F equals angle β which equals 45 to 90 degrees with respect to the radial direction (the “chamfer portion” having therefore an angle CA being greater than 0 degrees and less than or equal to 45 degrees with respect to the tread surface), and angle F minus angle A equals 10 to 45 degrees (angle CA minus angle KA therefore equaling 10 to 45 degrees); angle F controlling distribution of contact pressure on trailing edge to prevent rolling and inverting of trailing edge to prevent localized wear and optionally (2) Japan 315 teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread comprising a sipe (width = 0.4 to 0.8 mm) in a block wherein the sipe is zigzag in the depth direction such that angle α of a sipe segment having parallel walls is inclined at angle of 20 to 30 degrees with respect to the radial direction (this angle α = 20 to 30 degrees with respect to the radial direction defining an angle KA = 60 to 70 degrees with respect to the tread surface) and angle β of a sipe segment having parallel walls is inclined at an angle of 100-120 degrees with respect to the radial direction to obtain large coefficient of friction on snowy road and so that most of block surface has high friction value on hard surfaces such as ice or wet roads [FIGURES 1-4, machine translation]. Thus, Berger et al teaches:
angle CA minus angle KA = 10 to 45 degrees,
angle KA > 35 degrees,
45 degrees > angle CA > 0 degrees
and optional Japan 315 teaches:
angle KA = 60 to 70 degrees.
The claimed 15 degrees for angle CA minus angle KA falls within Berger et al’s range of 10 to 45 degrees. In other words, the claimed difference angle CA minus angle KA for Kaji et al’s sipe would have been obvious and could have been determined without undue experimentation.
6) Claim 5 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaji et al (US 2019/0100059) in view of Japan 722 (JP 2001-001722) and optionally further in view of Hashimoto et al (US 2006/0169377) or Schoenmaker et al (WO 2019/035847) as applied above and further in view of Japan 493 (JP 2007-223493) or Japan 398 (JP 2014-237398).
As to claims 5 and 28, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the Kaji et al’s sipe such that ratio of width TSW of sipe at tread surface to width UW of width of upper parallel portion of sipe is 2:1 (TSW/UW = 2) since (1) Japan 493 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising a block comprising a sipe, which may be zigzag in the depth direction [paragraph 22 of machine translation], such that width M of sipe at tread surface is less than or equal to five times width N of main portion of sipe (TSW being less than or equal to 5UW) such that M/N = 1.5 (TSW/UW = 1.5) [EXAMPLE 1], M/N = 3 (TSW/UW = 3) [EXAMPLE 4] or M/N = 5 (TSW/UW = 5) [EXAMPLE 5] to improve performance on ice [FIGURES 2, 4, 6, machine translation] or (2) Japan 398 teaches providing a pneumatic tire comprising a tread comprising chamfered sipes in land portions (ribs) having width WK1 (main sipe portion) = 1-4 mm and width WS1 (chamfer) = 1-1.5 mm (width of sipe at tread surface = 2WK1 = 2-8 mm), a ratio TSW/UW thereby being 2 to 5.3, to improve steering performance and improve grounding property to ensure braking distance [FIGURES 1-6, machine translation].
7) Claim 6 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaji et al (US 2019/0100059) in view of Japan 722 (JP 2001-001722) and optionally further in view of Hashimoto et al (US 2006/0169377) or Schoenmaker et al (WO 2019/035847) as applied above and further in view of Jenkins et al (US 2012/0168049) or German 932 (DE 1,480,932).
As to claims 6 and 29, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kaji et al’s sipe such that ratio of width UW of upper parallel portion of sipe to width CW of central parallel portion of sipe is 5:3 since (1) Kaji et al’s sipe comprises an upper parallel portion and a central parallel portion and (2)(A) Jenkins et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire comprising a tread comprising a block comprising a sipe which is zigzag in the depth direction such that, in the depth direction the sipe has a larger width upper portion and a smaller width central portion to increase traction and flexibility of a block when it comes into contact with a surface but allow the sipe to lock up when the block is in full contact with the road to enhance stiffness of the block and reduce rolling resistance [FIGURES 2, 5, paragraphs 28, 33] or (B) German 932 teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread comprising a fine cut (sipe) which is zigzag in the depth direction such that, in the depth direction, the sipe has a larger width upper portion and a smaller width central portion to prevent foreign bodies from penetrating to the bottom of the fine cut (sipe) and so that the fine cut (sipe) is less prone to cracking [FIGURES 1-6, especially FIGURE 6, machine translation].
8) Claim 7 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaji et al (US 2019/0100059) in view of Japan 722 (JP 2001-001722) and optionally further in view of Hashimoto et al (US 2006/0169377) or Schoenmaker et al (WO 2019/035847) as applied above and further in view of Korte et al (WO 2013/087440) or Japan 205 (JP 01-101205).
As to claims 7 and 30, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kaji et al’s sipe such that ratio of width BW of the base portion of the sipe to width CW of central parallel portion of sipe 2:1 (BW = 2CW) since (1) Korte et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire comprising a tread comprising land portions (ribs) comprising incisions (sipes), which may be both end open [machine translation] and which may be zigzag in the depth direction [FIGURE 10] such that width B3 of sipe is 0.5 to 1.5 mm and width B of enlarged bottom (“base portion”) is less than or equal to 5 mm and greater than or equal to 2B3 (BW being less than or equal to 5 mm and BW being greater than or equal to 2CW) in order to improve drainage after tread wear [machine translation] or (2) Japan 205 teaches providing a pneumatic tire comprising a tread comprising blocks comprising sipes having an enlarged bottom such that width of sipe = 0.3 to 1.7 mm and width of enlarged bottom portion is 1.2 to 5.0 times width of sipe (BW = 1.2 to 5.0 times CW) to increase water absorption / drainage capacity [FIGURES 1-3, machine translation].
Remarks
9) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-7 and 21-35 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
10) No claim is allowed.
11) Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
12) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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 B Smith (Whatley) 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
February 7, 2026