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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 9/17/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18701952 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Drawings
In view of the cancellation of claim 7, objection to the drawings is withdrawn. The drawings received on 4/17/2025 are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 11 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).
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 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaki (US 5894875) in view of Mayni (US 2022/0048335) and Inoue (JP2012-162194, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Masaki discloses a light truck pneumatic tire (col 1, lines 5-8), comprising:
a pair of annular bead areas spaced apart axially along a rotational axis of the tire (see bead portions with cores 5, Fig. 4);
a pair of sidewalls spaced apart axially along the rotational axis of the tire, each sidewall of the pair of sidewalls extending outwardly in a radial direction from one bead area of the pair of bead areas relative to the rotational axis (see side portions 2, Fig. 4);
a crown portion arranged widthwise between the pair of sidewalls and extending annularly around the tire (see Fig. 4);
the crown portion including a tread formed of elastomeric material arranged annularly around the crown portion and forming an outer, ground-engaging side upon which the tire is intended to roll upon, the tread having a thickness extending radially and a width extending axially, the tread forming a wearing portion the tire (see tread 1);
the crown portion further including one or more belt plies each forming a layer of elastomeric material reinforced with a plurality of elongate reinforcements spaced apart in an array, the one or more belt plies being arranged radially inward and below the tread (see belt layers 6, col 3, lines 1-5));
the crown portion further including a pair of shoulders, each shoulder forming a portion of the crown arranged adjacent to each sidewall (see Fig. 4);
the crown portion further including a cap ply arranged radially outward from the one or more belt plies and between the tread and the one or more belt plies, the cap ply extending at least partially across a full width of at least one of the belt plies and being arranged at least partially within each shoulder, the cap ply forming a layer of elastomeric material reinforced with a plurality of elongate reinforcements spaced apart in an array (see cap ply 7, col 4, lines 37-47).
While Masaki discloses a tread 1 and illustrates grooves, Masaki does not expressly disclose the tread pattern. In the same field of endeavor of tires, Mayni discloses a truck tire tread pattern having lateral sipes, lateral grooves, and longitudinal grooves, the longitudinal grooves arranged to form a plurality of ribs (see Figs. 1, 2). The pattern has shoulder ribs with lateral grooves and central ribs with lateral sipes (32, 72). The central ribs are continuous in the longitudinal direction. The central ribs are separated by longitudinal grooves comprising bridges (see Fig. 3 with bridges formed by siped portion 26 above the undersurface channel 24). 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 tire of Masaki with tread pattern as claimed in view of Mayni teaching a tire tread having lateral sipes, lateral grooves, longitudinal grooves, shoulder ribs, and continuous central ribs separated by bridged longitudinal grooves (see Figs. 2-3) for the purpose of absorbing and evacuating water at high speeds ([0018]).
Masaki does not disclose the center section contact surface ratio as greater than the first shoulder and second shoulder contact surface ratios; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have configured the contact surface ratios as claimed since Inoue, similarly directed towards a tire, teaches the groove area of the central region as less than the groove area of the shoulder region to enable a reduction in passing noise, reduction in rolling resistance, and improvement in wet performance at a higher level (Fig. 1, [0005,0009,0010,0027]).
Regarding claim 2, the bridges having longitudinal sipes (see longitudinal sipes 26, [0021], Fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 3, the bridged grooves have bridged portions separated by non-bridged portions (see siped bridges at 26 and non-bridged portions 28, Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the ribs have a plurality of longitudinally spaced apart lateral sipes that extend across the width of the ribs (see lateral sipes 32, 72).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, the lateral sipes have opposed surfaces within the sipes (see Fig. 4, 5). Mayni discloses that when the tread enters the contact patch, forces on the tread may force the lateral sipes closed so that rubber on either side touches ([0027])--thus, the opposed surfaces of the sipe make contact when loaded.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaki (US 5894875) in view of Mayni (US 2022/0048335) and Inoue (JP2012-162194, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maehara (US 20130240103)
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Masaki and Mayni do not disclose the width of the shoulder ribs; however, 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 shoulder ribs with width equal to 19-35% or 19-25% of the tread width since Maehara, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches configuring the shoulder ribs with width W3 in the range of 20% to 24% of the tread width ([0023]). One would have been motivated to balance land portion width for tread rigidity and drainage properties of the tread ([0030]; Examiner notes that groove width/placement in turn affects the land widths).
Response to Arguments
Applicant states that claim 6 has been amended to dependent from claim 4 and that new claim 11 replications the limitations of claim 6 except having it depend from claim 5.
Examiner notes that both claims depend from claim 5.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there is no motivation for the combination with Inoue. Applicant argues that Inoue teaches only that a higher groove area ratio of the shoulder region than the center region would be good for noise, but does not teach that the comparative ratios would be good for other performance characteristics. Applicant points to paragraph [0027] of Inoue which discuss the impact of groove area ratio ranges in the center and shoulder regions on noise, rolling resistance, dry performance, and wet performance. Applicant argues that these performance characteristics are not a motivation for improving wear performance of a light truck tire such as applicants. Applicant argues that the rejection is improper because it fails to provide sufficient rationale or articulated reasoning why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the cited references.
Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Inoue discloses that is preferable that the groove area in the center region is set to be less than the groove area of the shoulder region ([0009,0010]; Examiner notes that groove area ratio is the inverse of contact surface ratio such that a lower groove area ratio means a higher contact surface ratio). Inoue provides preferable groove area ratio ranges for the center region and shoulder regions and states "[t]his enables reduction in passing noise, reduction in rolling resistance, and improvement in wet performance to be achieved at a higher level" ([0010]). Paragraph [0027] further discusses the influence of groove area ratio on noise, rolling resistance, wet performance, and dry performance properties. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to modify Masaki in view of Mayni with the teachings of Inoue to achieve the expected and predictable result of reduced noise while maintaining good rolling resistance and wet performance (Inoue, [0005]).
In response to applicant's argument that Inoue does not disclose improved wear performance based on the higher contact surface ratio in the center, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Furthermore, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See MPEP 2144 (IV).
Conclusion
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.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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