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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, a tire as depicted in figure 3 in the reply filed on December 2, 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 14, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 32-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 32 includes the limitation “the first sipes having a substantially straight course forming with the equatorial plane (X-X) an angle θ’ concordant with the angle θ”. The definition of concordant is “in agreement; consistent.” Such a claim term would seem to indicate that the angles are the same or similar, but if similar, it is unclear how similar. It is noted that claim 35 requires the angles to be different, so it does not appear that Applicant wishes to require these angles to be the same. For purposes of this Office action, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “concordant” is taken to mean that the angles have the same inclination direction with respect to the width direction. Claims 33-62 are also rejected as depending upon claim 32.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 42 sets forth that the in the pairs of the second and/or third transverse grooves, that they extend on a prolongation of the remaining second and/or third circumferential groove, but these grooves extend on a prolongation of the remaining second and/or third transverse groove, and will be interpreted as such in this Office action.
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.
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.
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 32-41, 43-45, 48-51 and 59-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US Pat. No. 6,315,018) in view of Takahashi (US Pub. No. 2017/0036488).
Regarding claims 32-34, Watanabe teaches a pneumatic tire for passenger cars (column 1, lines 12-17) with a specific embodiment having a tire size of 185/60R14 (column 7, lines 28-30), such a tire size being usable on a car, the tire having a tread band comprising 5 land portions, two outermost circumferential grooves 14 being taken to be the claimed first and second circumferential grooves, the area between the two outermost circumferential grooves being taken to be the claimed central region and the area outside of such grooves being taken to be the claimed first and second shoulder regions, the central region having a width greater than 35% of the tread width, the central region having three ribs comprising transverse grooves and sipes, either of the middle land portions can be taken to be the claimed first rib comprising a plurality of first transverse grooves 16, the first transverse grooves extending 100% of the width of the first rib, each first transverse groove comprising a substantially straight first segment, inclined to the equatorial plane at an angle θ, a substantially straight second segment, counter-inclined relative to the first segment, and a curvilinear connecting segment extending between the first segment and the second segment, and the tread further comprising sipes 22 comprising a plurality of first sipes located in the first rib between the first transverse grooves, wherein the first sipes extend over 100% of the width of the first rib, and the first sipes having a substantially straight course forming with the equatorial plane an angle θ’ similar to that of the angle θ (taken to be concordant with the other angle), and the first sipes have no mutual intersection points (column 4, lines 44-56; figure 1). Watanabe does not specifically disclose that the first segment has an angle θ smaller than or equal to 70 degrees to the equatorial plane. In a tire similarly directed to having a transverse groove with two substantially straight segments oppositely inclined and connected by a curvilinear segment, Takahashi teaches inclining the first and second straight segments at 20 to 30 degrees to the width direction (paragraph [0087]), such being 60 to 70 degrees to the equatorial plane, overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incline the straight segments at 60 to 70 degrees to the equatorial plane as taught by Takahashi in the tire of Watanabe as known preferable angles for straight segments in a transverse groove with two substantially straight segments oppositely inclined and connected by a curvilinear segment (see Takahashi at paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 35, Watanabe teaches a specific embodiment with an angle θ’ ≈ 70 degrees to the equatorial plane (figure 1), and Takahashi teaches an angle θ = 60 to 70 degrees to the equatorial plane as was set forth above, resulting in θ’ being greater than or equal to θ, thus overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 36, Watanabe teaches that the first sipes are parallel over 100% of their extension (figure 1).
Regarding claims 37-40, Watanabe teaches that the central region comprises a third and fourth circumferential groove 14 axially delimiting a second circumferential rib 20, wherein the rib 20 comprises a plurality of pairs of second transverse grooves 16 which extend less than 40% of the width of the rib and extend from the adjacent circumferential grooves (column 4, lines 44-56; figure 1).
Regarding claims 41 and 49, Watanabe teaches that the second transverse grooves are counter-inclined relative to the first segment of the first transverse grooves (figure 1).
Regarding claims 43 and 48, Watanabe teaches that the second transverse grooves are substantially straight (figure 1).
Regarding claim 44, Watanabe teaches that the second transverse grooves form an angle of greater than 45 degrees to the equatorial plane (figure 1).
Regarding claim 45, Watanabe teaches that the second transverse grooves have a substantially transverse course (figure 1).
Regarding claim 50, Watanabe teaches that the second sipes are substantially parallel to the second grooves (figure 1).
Regarding claim 51, Watanabe teaches that the second sipes are alternated with the pairs of second transverse grooves (figure 1).
Regarding claim 59, Watanabe teaches that the shoulder transverse grooves 16 on both sides of the tire (taken to be the claimed fourth and fifth transverse grooves) extend over 100% of the width of the shoulder region, and have a maximum width almost as wide as the main circumferential grooves (figure 1), and main grooves typically have a width substantially greater than 4 mm, thus Watanabe suggests that the fourth and fifth transverse grooves have a width greater than or equal to 4 mm. The description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP at 2125). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 60, Watanabe teaches that the fourth and fifth transverse grooves respectively extend from the or the second groove (figure 1).
Regarding claims 61-62, Watanabe teaches that the shoulder regions comprise sipes 22 (taken to be the claimed sixth and seventh sipes) having a substantially transverse course alternated with the shoulder transverse grooves in a 1-to-1 ratio (figure 1).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Matsubara (US Pub. No. 2020/0001657).
Regarding claim 42, Watanabe does not specifically disclose that in the pairs of the second transverse grooves, that a second transverse groove extends on the prolongation of the remaining second transverse groove. In a tire similarly directed to having a transverse groove with two substantially straight segments oppositely inclined and connected by a curvilinear segment, Matsubara teaches that the pairs of the second transverse grooves, that a second transverse groove 25A extends on the prolongation of the remaining second transverse groove 25B (paragraph [0081]; figures 1-3 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the second transverse grooves along a prolongation as taught by Matsubara in the tire of Watanabe (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 46-47 and 53-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Hirosue (US Pub. No. 2018/0370290) and/or Tomida (US Pub. No. 2014/0290815) and/or Fujioka (US Pub. No. 2022/0297479).
Regarding claims 46-47, Watanabe does not specifically disclose that the second sipes extend over at least 80% or the whole width of the rib. In related art having short transverse grooves/notches and sipes on an equatorial land portion, Hirosue (figures 1 and 7), Tomida (figure 1) and Fujioka (figures 1-2) each teach extending transverse sipes completely across an equatorial land portion which also comprises short transverse grooves/notches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend sipes completely across the equatorial land portion as taught by Hirosue and/or Tomida and/or Fujioka in the tire of Watanabe (combined) in order to increase the edge effect of the equatorial land portion and thus increase the traction of the tire.
Regarding claims 53-54, Watanabe does not specifically disclose that the second transverse grooves are connected by a sipe. In related art having short transverse grooves/notches and sipes on an equatorial land portion, Hirosue (figures 1 and 7), Tomida (figure 1) and Fujioka (figures 1-2) each teach connecting the short transverse grooves/notches by a sipe while also including an additional sipe which extends completely across the equatorial land portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the second transverse grooves by a sipe as taught by Hirosue and/or Tomida and/or Fujioka in the tire of Watanabe (combined) in order to increase the edge effect of the equatorial land portion and thus increase the traction of the tire.
Regarding claim 55, Watanabe teaches that the second transverse grooves of each pair lie on the continuation of the second segment of the first transverse grooves (figure 1).
Regarding claims 56-58, Watanabe teaches or suggests that the void-to-rubber ratios of the first, second and third circumferential ribs fall within the claimed ranges (see figure 1). The description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP at 2125). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Uotani (US Pub. No. 2022/0126630).
Regarding claim 52, Watanabe does not specifically disclose alternating the pairs of transverse grooves with the sipes in a 2-to-1 ratio. In related art having short transverse grooves/notches and sipes on an equatorial land portion, Uotani teaches providing the pairs of transverse grooves with sipes in a 2-to-1 ratio (paragraphs [0082]-[0088]; figures 1 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a 2-to-1 ratio of paired grooves to sipes as taught by Uotani in the tire of Watanabe (combined) in order to increase the edge effect of the equatorial land portion and thus increase the traction of the tire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 April 3, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights