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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 11/26/2025 have been accepted. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 18, 20 are amended. Claims 3, 5, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19 are canceled. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 9/17/2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kono (JP2001121919A, of record), in view of Takada (JP2007137156A, of record), in view of Kotoku (US2014/0326380A1, of record), and optionally in view of Georges (US2010/0186860A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kono teaches a tire (Fig. 1) comprising a belt (belt “3”) and a tread surface (tread “4”),
Wherein the belt has a plurality of intersecting belt layers each containing belt cords in a direction that intersects each other between layers (the belt includes belt layers which are inclined and have a structure in which the layers are superposed and the cords intersect each other between the layers [0022]. These are located to the radial outside of the inner belt layers “3a” and “3b” [0022-0024, Fig. 1]),
One or more circumferential belt layers containing belt cords extending in the circumferential direction (first and second belt layers “3a” and “3b” are the radially innermost belt layers. They are both circumferential belts extending in the circumferential direction [0022-0024]),
The intersecting belt cords have an angle of 20-45 with respect to the width direction (the inclined belt layers preferably have an inclination angle from 30-70deg [0022-0024]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990),
the tread surface is provided with a plurality of main grooves (3 circumferential grooves “5a” “5b” and “5c” are shown in the cross-section of the tire in Fig. 1), a shoulder land portion between an outermost main groove and a ground contact edge (the shoulder land portion is considered from the axially outermost portion of the groove “5a” to the point “S” which is the end of the tread),
an auxiliary groove provided in the shoulder land portion with a narrower groove width than the main grooves (circumferential groove “6” is formed in the shoulder land portion as in Fig. 1. This groove clearly is considerably narrower and shallower than the main circumferential grooves shown in Fig. 1.),
an outer groove wall on an outer side of a pair of groove walls of the auxiliary groove is at the same or inner side of the outermost end of the circumferential belt layers (as in Fig. 1, the auxiliary groove is clearly located axially inside of the axially outermost end of the circumferential belt layer “22”. An annotated Fig. 1 is shown below to demonstrate this).
PNG
media_image1.png
521
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kono teaches that the circumferential belt layers may have a “wavy” arrangement to them [0034]. The waves may be arranged with various waveform lengths λ and amplitudes 2a depending on the tire type and its usage form [0034, Fig. 7], and Kono does not explicitly limit the amplitude of the waves of the cords to any specific value. Kono does not explicitly suggest the distance L being less than twice a value B. Takada, similarly tied to tires for heavy vehicles such as trucks [pg. 2 of machine translation], is arranged with two radially inward belt plies “32” which both have a wavy shape [Fig. 1, pg. 3 of machine translation]. The reinforcing elements of each ply are in a wave/zig-zag shape, where the amplitude Z ranges from 1.2 to 1.8mm [pg. 3 of machine translation]. The amplitude Z is a measure from the peak to trough of the cord [see Fig. 3], such that it is akin to “B” of the instant application.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the belt layer of Kono to have the suggested amplitude of Takada. One would have been motivated so as to suppress breakage, suppress unevenness in the circumferential direction, and prevent deterioration of the appearance of the tire [pg. 3 of machine translation]. With this suggested amplitude, the “twice” of both amplitudes B would have a range of 2.4 to 3.6mm. As in the annotated Fig. 1 of Kono above, the widthwise distance L is from the outer end of the circ belt layers “3a” and “3b” to the outer end of the auxiliary groove. This is an extremely small distance, such that it would be reasonable to expect that this is a distance less than 3.6mm. Additionally, Kono teaches that a widthwise distance between a centerline P of the auxiliary groove and the dividing line “7” may have a distance of 2mm [0018-0019, Fig. 1]. As this distance between the interface and the groove “6” is greater than that of the widthwise distance “L” in the annotated figure above, this further suggests that the widthwise distance L would be less than 2mm, and that the widthwise distance L would be less than the value of twice of both amplitude B of the wavy shape. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kono clearly depicts in its figures that the outermost narrow groove “6” is more shallow compared to the main grooves “5”. Kono does not explicitly teach a groove depth of its auxiliary groove compared to the main grooves. It is well known in the art to set the groove depth D to be 10-30% of the groove depth of the outermost main groove. Kotoku, similarly tied to heavy load tires [0013], teaches a pneumatic tire with a plurality of belt layers (Fig. 3). The tire tread is provided with an outermost main groove “23” and a narrow shallow groove which is provided in the shoulder portion [Fig. 4]. The narrow shallow groove has a groove depth of 5 to 25% of the shoulder groove depth [0058, Fig. 4]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the groove depths of Kono to be as suggested by Kotoku. One would have been motivated so as to appropriately set the groove depths, such that the ground contact pressure of the shoulder land portion may be increased which suppresses uneven wear [0046, 0058].
Kono’s shoulder land portion, as defined above, extends from the axially outermost portion of the groove “5a” to the point “S” which is the end of the tread. Kono specifically states that “The surface of the tread 4 has a rib pattern having a plurality of circumferential grooves” [0017]. In the art of tires, it is conventionally understood that a "rib" tread pattern definitionally that there are no grooves fully crossing each of the respective "ribs". Whereas a "block" pattern in contrast is conventionally defined to mean land portions which contain grooves that fully cross respective land portions to circumferentially divide the tread pattern into "blocks". Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from Kono's disclosure that Kono's tire is situated as a "rib pattern", meaning that the shoulder land portion would be free of crossing grooves circumferentially dividing the shoulder land portion (as this is the conventional definition of "rib" used within the art of tires).
Optionally applied regarding the rib configuration of the shoulder land portion, it is noted that shoulder land portions free of grooves are extremely well-known within the art (especially in heavier duty tires such as Kono’s [0001]). Georges, for example, discloses a pneumatic tire intended for truck tires [title, 0001], which is the same intended use as Kono. The tire tread of Georges is shown as in Figs. 1 and 3. The shoulder ribs (which is the tread region from shoulder circumferential grooves “16” moving axially outwards to the edge of the tread) are only formed to have blind sipes “100” formed adjacent to the respective circumferential groove [Fig. 1, 0045]. These sipes do not fully cross the land portion and do not circumferentially divide the shoulder land portion (such that this sipe arrangement is essentially the exact same as in the instant application Fig. 2). Additionally, it is noted that “groove” as in the instant application is treated distinctly from “sipes” [see instant 0030], such that the sipes of Georges would not be considered to be “grooves” regardless because of their very thin width.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the tread pattern of Georges to the tread of Kono. One would have been motivated, because Kono does not explicitly show the arrangement of grooves/sipes in its respective land portions, and because Georges ascribes the benefits of optimizing wet skid performance, rolling resistance, limiting wear, and increasing robustness during maneuvering [0045, 0050-0053].
Regarding claim 2, modified Kono suggests a tire wherein a tire widthwise distance L is 5% or less of the width W of the one or more circumferential belt layers (as in the annotated Fig. 1 above, the widthwise distance L is from the outer end of the circ belt layers “3a” and “3b” to the outer end of the auxiliary groove. As this is a very small difference compared to the total width of the circ belts (see full Fig. 1 of Kono which depicts one half of the tire where each of the circumferential belts extend the width of the tire), it would clearly have a width L less than 5%. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, modified Kono suggests a tire wherein a tire widthwise distance L is 5mm or less (as in the annotated Fig. 1 above, the widthwise distance L is from the outer end of the circ belt layers “3a” and “3b” to the outer end of the auxiliary groove. This is an extremely small distance, such that it would clearly be less than a width of 5mm. Additionally, Kono teaches that a widthwise distance between a centerline P of the auxiliary groove and the dividing line “7” may have a distance of 2mm [0018-0019, Fig. 1]. As this distance between the interface and the groove “6” is greater than that of the widthwise distance “L” in the annotated figure above, this further conclusively shows that the widthwise distance L would necessarily be less than 5mm. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 6, 14, 16, modified Kono suggests a tire wherein the outer groove wall of the auxiliary groove is on the inner side of the circumferential belt layers (as in Fig. 1 and the annotated Fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 1 above, the outer wall of the auxiliary groove is clearly inside of the outer end of each of the circ belts “3a” and “3b”).
Regarding claim 7, 18 and 20, modified Kono suggests a tire wherein the circumferential belt layers are on an inner side of the plurality of intersecting belt layers (as in Fig. 1, the circ belt layers “3a” and “3b” are clearly the radially innermost belt layers).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant generally argues that the combination of limitations (with emphasis on the new limitation regarding the shoulder land portion be configured as a rib free of grooves extending in the tire width direction and circumferentially dividing the shoulder land portion) overcomes each of the references and combination of references previously applied.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in further detail in the rejections above, Kono describes its tread as a “rib pattern”, which in the art of tires is definitionally and conventionally understood to mean a tread pattern which is free of grooves fully crossing and dividing the land portion (as opposed to a “block” tread pattern which has grooves fully crossing and dividing the shoulder land portion). Additionally, it is noted that optional reference of Georges is provided to further make obvious this newly added limitation of having no grooves in the shoulder land portion which circumferentially divide the shoulder land portion.
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 THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749