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) 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.
3) Claims 1-12 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 1 line 5 ambiguously refers to “the tread block”. Which tread block? Also, it is unclear if “the tread block” (claim 1 line 5) and “a block” (claim 1 line 8) are different blocks or the same block. In claim 1, it is suggested to (1) on line 5, change “the tread block” to --a tread block-- and (2) on line 8, change “a block” to --the tread block--.
In claim 1 line 6, it is unclear what has the “outer walls”. In claim 1 line 6, after “outer walls”, it is suggested to insert --of the tread block--.
In claim 2 line 5, there is no strict antecedent basis for “the start positions”. In claim 2 line 5, it is suggested to change “the start positions” to --the starting positions--.
In claim 10, it is unclear why line 3 describes “one block” instead of “the block”. In other words, it is unclear if the wave-shaped transverse kerfs and the two-in-one kerf are formed in the same block. In claim 10 line 3, is suggested to change “one block” to --the block--.
In claims 11 and 12, there is no antecedent basis for “the wave-shaped kerf”. Which wave-shaped kerf? The following changes are suggested: (1) in claim 11 line 2, change “the wave-shaped kerf” to --a wave-shaped kerf-- and (2) in claim 12 line 1, change “the wave-shaped kerf” to --the wave-shaped kerfs--.
4) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
5) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 (dependent on claim 2) broadens instead of further limits claim 2 since (A) claim 2 is limited to “branched portions extending linearly from the inclined portions” (emphasis added) whereas (B) claim 3 broadly recites “the branched portions of the transverse kerfs are formed as linear or non-linear kerfs” (emphasis added).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
6) The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7) 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.
8) Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japan 923 (JP 05-169923).
Japan 923 discloses a pneumatic tire (passenger tire size 185/70R13) having a tread comprising blocks separated by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves wherein each block comprises one end open sipes FIGURES 1-4, machine translation]. FIGURE 1 of Japan 923 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
546
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Each one end open sipe (7a, 9a, 11a) has a bent configuration comprising a first linear portion, an inclined portion and a second linear portion wherein the first portion communicates with a circumferential groove, the inclined portion connects the first and second portions and the second portion terminates in the block [FIGURE 1]. Japan 923 teaches that the straight portion on one side of one sipe is formed on an extension line of a straight portion of other side of an adjacent another sipe [FIGURE 1, machine translation]. Japan 923 teaches using 4-6 sipes per block [machine translation]. Japan 923 discloses an EXAMPLE #1 in which the tire has a tire size 185/70R13 (tread width = 140 mm) having the FIGURE 1 tread pattern wherein there is five sipes per block, width of sipe equals 0.5 mm, pitch = 35 mm and distance between sipes is 4.0 mm [machine translation]. An annotated partial copy of FIGURE 1 of Japan 923 is provided below:
PNG
media_image2.png
471
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, the markings were added to facilitate discussion of FIGURE 1 of Japan 923. In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, A is a sipe, B is a sipe, C is a sipe, D is a sipe and E is a sipe. In FIGURE 1, the illustrated angle between a first portion and an inclined portion of sipe A is about 120 degrees; the illustrated angle between a first portion and an inclined portion of sipe B is about 120 degrees, the illustrated length of a branched portion of sipe A is about 16% of total length of the block in a width direction and the illustrated length of a branched portion of sipe B is about 36% of total length of the block in a width direction. Sipes A and B constitute a two-in-one kerf. Sipes C and D constitute a two-in-one kerf. Thus, Japan 923 shows a block comprising two “two-in-one kerfs”. Claim 1 does not exclude sipe E. Also, note that Japan 923 teaches that the number of sipes in a block may be four [machine translation].
As to claims 1-4 and 7-9, the claimed pneumatic tire is anticipated by Japan 923’s pneumatic tire. The claimed “two-in-one kerf” [claim 1] reads on the combination of sipes A and B or the combination of sipes C and D [MARKED UP FIGURE]. With respect to “the transverse kerfs start from two outer walls [of the tread block] opposite to each other at the same height in a circumferential direction of the tire” [claim 1], Japan 923 teaches the straight portion on one side of one sipe is formed on an extension line of a straight portion of other side of an adjacent another sipe [FIGURE 1, machine translation].
As to claim 2, FIGURE 1 of Japan 923 illustrates an angle between a first portion and an inclined portion of sipe A being about 120 degrees and illustrates an angle between a first portion and an inclined portion of sipe B being about 120 degrees,
As to claim 3, the branched portions of the sipes A and B are linear [FIGURE 1].
As to claim 4, Japan 923 discloses a sipe width = 0.5 mm [machine translation].
As to claim 7, Japan 923 discloses an interval for the sipes being 4.0 mm [machine translation].
As to claim 8, FIGURE 1 illustrates a length of a branched portion of sipe A being about 16% of total length of the block in a width direction and illustrates a length of a branched portion of sipe B being about 36% of total length of the block in a width direction.
As to claim 9: Sipes A and B constitute a two-in-one kerf. Sipes C and D constitute a two-in-one kerf. Thus, Japan 923 shows a block comprising two “two-in-one kerfs”. Claim 1 does not exclude sipe E. Also, note that Japan 923 teaches that the number of sipes in a block may be four [machine translation].
9) Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 923 (JP 05-169923) in view of Speziari et al (US 2021/0129591).
As to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 923’s pneumatic tire such that depths of the sipes (transverse kerfs) are in a range of 3 mm to 10 mm since Speziari et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger tire size 245/70R17) having a tread comprising blocks having one end open sipes such that the sipes have a depth = 2 to 15 mm (e.g. 3 mm) [FIGURES 2-3, paragraph 114].
10) Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 923 (JP 05-169923) in view of Yamaguchi et al (US 4,723,584).
As to claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 923’s pneumatic tire such that a void portion on which a cross sectional area of a pore is locally expanded is formed in an end portion terminated in the block since Yamaguchi teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger tire size 165SR13) having a tread comprising blocks having one end open sipes such that a hole is formed at the closed end of the sipe to improve traction performance on snow and braking performance on wet road [FIGURE 1].
11) Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 923 (JP 05-169923) in view of Mundl #1 (WO 2007/028438) or Mundl #2 (EP 1,580,034).
As to claims 10-12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 923’s pneumatic tire such that the block has an area in which a plurality of wave-shaped transverse kerfs are formed on a surface of the block excluding an area in which the two-in-one kerf is formed in one block [claim 10], a distance between the two-in-one kerf and the wave-shaped kerf is a length in a range of 10% to 90% of a length of the block in a circumferential direction of the tire [claim 11], the two-in-one kerf and the wave-shaped kerf are formed to be inclined with respect to each other in the block so that an angle therebetween is in a range of 3° to 70° [claim 12] since (1) Mundl #1 teaches providing a passenger tire having a tread comprising blocks wherein (a) a block comprises shallow sipes 31 (width = 0.1 to 0.4 mm, depth = 10-90% tread depth) and deep sipes 30 (width = 0.4 to 0.8 mm, depth < 7-8 mm), (b) the shallow sipes may be wave shaped sipes (wave shaped kerfs) formed in an area of a block excluding an area in which the deep sipes are formed in the block, and (c) the shallow sipes may be at an acute angle with respect to the depth sipes so as to improve grip properties on winter roads, especially on snow and ice [FIGURES 1-9, machine translation, especially for example FIGURES 7, 8] or (2) Mundl #2 teaches providing a passenger tire having a tread comprising blocks wherein (a) a block comprises shallow sipes 3 (width = 0.15 to 0.4 mm, depth = 1.5 to 3 mm) and deep sipes 2 (width = 0.4 to 0.8 mm, depth = 7-8 mm), (b) the shallow sipes may be wave shaped sipes (wave shaped kerfs) formed in an area of a block excluding an area in which the deep sipes are formed in the block, and (c) the shallow sipes may be at an acute angle with respect to the depth sipes so as to improve snow and ice grip [FIGURES 1A, 1B, 1F, 2A-2C, 4A-4C, machine translation].
Remarks
12) The remaining references are of interest.
13) No claim is allowed.
14) 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
June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights