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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/20/2026 has been entered.
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, 3, 4, 6, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diensthuber (WO2018/157952, with English machine translation) in view of Ishino (US 20180093534) and Ikeda (US 20080223495).
Regarding claim 1, Diensthuber discloses a tire having a tread intended to come into contact with the ground via a tread surface ([0004], Fig. 1):
the tread comprising raised elements organized into at least a first and a second tread pattern element (MA, MB), at least partially separated from one another by grooves and extending radially outwards from a bottom surface to the tread surface over a radial height H at least equal to 6 mm and at most equal to the radial thickness Hsre of the tread (see profile blocks extending across the tread and separated by oblique grooves 1, [0046], Fig. 1; tread has profile depth of 6.5 to 9 mm, [0055]; grooves at most equal to the radial thickness of the tread since tread is at least defined by the profile depth);
each tread pattern element (MA, MB) comprising a first portion (MA1, MB1) arranged on a first side of the equatorial plane (C) passing through the centre of the tread, said first portion (MA1, MB1) extending continuously across the equatorial plane at the tread surface into a second portion (MA2, MB2) arranged on a second side of the equatorial plane (C) (pattern elements MA and MB defined by V-shaped pitches L, M, or K wherein the first portion covers half the V-shape and second tread portion covers other half of the V-shape; annotated figure 1 below shows how the portions extend across the equator);
PNG
media_image1.png
304
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the tread being obtained by repeating over one revolution of the wheel the first tread pattern element MA formed by a first and a second portion (MA1, MA2) according to a pitch PA, and the second tread pattern element MB formed by a first and a second portion (MB1, MB2) according to a pitch PB, with PA<=PB (see pitches L, M, K wherein first pattern MA is construed as M or K and second pattern is construed as L or M; pitch varies in length, [0037]);
each portion (MA1, MB1; MA2, MB2) being a volumetric element having leading faces which are the faces of which a radially outer edge corner enters the contact patch first when the tire passes over the ground (each portion comprises sidewall faces formed by oblique groove 1).
Diensthuber does not disclose the tread elements (MA, MB) as extending from a circumferentially oriented first and second v-shaped grooves arranged at first and second sidewalls, respectively. In the same field of endeavor of tire treads, Ikeda teaches providing a circumferential sipe 11 in the shoulder and a recess 15 in the buttress face of the tread elements (i.e., where the tread element extends from the sidewalls) to greatly enhance anti-wandering performance of the tread ([0040-0041]). Ikeda discloses the recess extends circumferentially and has an approximately triangular cross-section (see [0040,0046]; Fig. 5a)--this is construed as reading on a circumferentially oriented v-shaped groove. 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 tread elements/sidewall with first and second v-shaped grooves as claimed since Ikeda discloses providing a circumferential sipe 11 and circumferentially-oriented triangular recess in the shoulder/buttress portion of the tread to enhance anti-wandering performance ([0040-0046], Fig. 5a).
As to the angle PSI2 of each leading face being comprised in the range of 0 to 60 degrees and the angle at the inner end of the main void being in the range of 25 to 60 degrees, the ranges are considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious in view of Diensthuber's teaching that the angle alpha of the inner groove section is 25 to 45 degrees to the circumferential direction (45 to 65 degrees to the axial direction) and the angle beta of the outer groove section is 75 to 90 degrees to the circumferential direction (0 to 15 degrees to the axial direction)(see [0042-0045]), said ranges lying within or substantially overlapping the claimed ranges.
Diensthuber discloses each portion (MA1, MB1; MA2, MB2) of each tread pattern element (MA, MB) comprises at least one main sipe having the curvature of said portion, and substantially parallel to its edges, said main sipe extends continuously from a first axial edge from a first side of the equatorial plane (C) to a connection point situated in a main void on a second side of the equatorial plane (C) (see incisions extending along the block lengths and substantially parallel to groove 1, [0058-0059], Fig. 1). Diensthuber discloses the main void extends to a second edge of the tread (see oblique groove 1 in Fig. 1).
As to the axial width of said main sipe represents from 52% to 63% of the axial width of the tread and the connection point being situated at a distance normal to the equatorial plane (C) comprised between [0, 25] mm, while Diensthuber does not expressly disclose the numerical or percentage distance of the features, Diensthuber clearly illustrates the end of main sipe as slightly greater than half the tread width (sipe extends just over the center line) and also clearly illustrates the main groove end adjacent the equatorial plane (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor of directional tire treads, Ishino teaches configuring oblique lateral grooves such that their inner end is set to be not greater than 5 mm from the equator to enhance snowy road performance ([0025-0027]). Ishino also discloses joint grooves that connect oblique grooves on each side of the tread and discloses the distance Leh between intersection points as 0.15xTW to 0.21xTW ([0046, 0048]) to provide steering stability on snowy roads. The distance Leh corresponds to the distance of the center raised element extending beyond the equatorial plane. Diensthuber's main sipe extends from the tread edge to just past the equatorial plane along the center element so as to intersect the oblique groove on the other tread half. The distance of the main sipe is thus greater than 50% and is slightly shorter than the center raised element extension beyond the equator (i.e., Leh/2)(see annotated Fig. below). This combination suggests a main sipe width of greater than 50% and slightly less than 57.5 to 60.5% TW.
PNG
media_image2.png
543
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious, however, to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the main sipe axial width and connection point distance as claimed since (1) Diensthuber clearly illustrates the end of main sipe as slightly greater than half the tread width (sipe extends just over the center line; thus >50% of TW) and also clearly illustrates the main groove end adjacent the equatorial plane (see Fig. 1); and (2) Ishino, similarly directed towards a directional tire tread, teaches configuring oblique lateral grooves such that their inner end is set to be not greater than 5 mm from the equator to enhance snowy road performance ([0025-0027]) and configuring the axial length Leh between outer intersections of the center joint grooves connecting the oblique groove as 0.15xTW to 0.21xTW to provide steering stability on snowy roads ([0046, 0048])--thus, modified Diensthuber would have a main sipe that extends between 50% and 61% of the TW.
Regarding claim 3, the first and second portion are curved in an axial direction from the tread edge to the center (Fig. 1).
Regarding 4, the first and second portions are curved to give a V shape pattern with a running direction.
Regarding claim 6, 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 main sipe length to main void length within the range of 1.1 to 1.6 since (1) Diensthuber clearly illustrates the sipe as extending with greater axial length than the oblique grooves (sipe extends past the equator whereas groove terminates short of the equator) and (2) Ishino discloses the end of the oblique lateral grooves as less than 5 mm from the equator (thus lateral grooves have an axial length of slightly less than 50%) and the length between outer intersections of the center joint grooves as 0.15xTW-0.21xTW, thus suggesting outer ends of the land portions extending about 7.5 to 10.5% of the TW past the equator (thus, the sipes have axial lengths of slightly less than 57.5 to 60.5% of the TW) ([0025-0027,0046,0048]) --which suggests a sipe/groove length ratio of about 1 to 1.2, said range overlapping the claimed range. One would have been motivated to configure the groove arrangement to improve snowy road performance (see Ishino, [0025-0027,0046,0048]).
Regarding claim 11, the main voids (oblique grooves) define the radial height of the tread pattern and thus would have a depth of 100% of the tread height.
Regarding claim 16, the tread comprises a third tread pattern element (see pitch elements L, M, K). As to the volumetric void ratio, each pattern element comprises the same degree of siping and grooves and thus, the volumetric voids ratio is substantially identical.
Regarding claim 18, Diensthuber does not expressly disclose a 3PMSF winter certification; 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 it for winter certification since Diensthuber discloses the tread pattern as configured for snow covered roads ([0014]).
Claims 2, 8, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diensthuber (WO2018/157952, with English machine translation) in view of Ishino (US 20180093534) and Ikeda (US 20080223495) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seng (DE 102017203221, with English machine translation).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Diensthuber discloses three different pitch elements (see L, M, K) but does not disclose their length ratios; 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 pitch elements with length ratios as claimed since Seng, similarly directed towards a directional tread pattern teaches configuring the tread with L, M, and K ratios wherein the ratio of the three lengths is 1.4:1.2:1, which yields a PB/PC ratio of 0.86 and a PA/PB ratio of 0.83 (see [0020]), these ratios satisfying the claimed relationships. One would have been motivated to optimize the noise according to pitch length variation method ([0020]).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Diensthuber does not expressly detail the width and depth of the main sipes; 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 width and depth of the main sipes as claimed since Seng, similarly directed towards a directional tread pattern, teaches configuring the width of sipes as 0.2 to 0.6 mm and depth as at most equal to 80% to improve braking and traction behavior ([0004-05; 0016]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diensthuber (WO2018/157952, with English machine translation) in view of Ishino (US 20180093534) and Ikeda (US 20080223495) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nguyen (US 20070095447) or Blouin (US 20210114417).
Regarding claim 7, Diensthuber does not disclose the main sipe as containing an internal channel; 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 main sipes with internal channels in view of (1) Nguyen, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches providing sipes with widened bottoms that develop into grooves to improve worn tire wet road performance ([0005,0027]) or (2) Blouin, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches providing sipes with widened portions to preserve characteristics and performance of a tire while the tread wears down ([0018]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diensthuber (WO2018/157952, with English machine translation) in view of Ishino (US 20180093534) and Ikeda (US 20080223495) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishino '249 (US 20160297249).
Regarding claim 10, Diensthuber does not disclose the width of the main void; 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 groove widths as 5 to 13 mm since Ishino '249, similarly directed towards a directional tire tread, discloses configuring inclined main grooves with widths of 6 to 15 mm to improve on-snow performance and wet grip performance in good balance ([0033]).
23. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diensthuber (WO2018/157952, with English machine translation) in view of Ishino (US 20180093534) and Ikeda (US 20080223495) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boisdon (WO 2021/089958, with US 20220388345 as English language equivalent).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Diensthuber does not disclose the volumetric void ratio TEV or the surface voids ratio TES; 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 tread with volumetric void ratio and surface void ratio as claimed since Boisdon, similarly directed towards a direction tread pattern, teaches configuring the volumetric void ratio as 0.24 to 0.35 to obtain a compromise on grip performance between snowy ground, wet ground, and dry ground and the surface voids ratio as 0.40 to 0.70 ([0089,0092,0103]), said range overlapping the claimed range.
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diensthuber (WO2018/157952, with English machine translation) in view of Ishino (US 20180093534) and Ikeda (US 20080223495) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brockmann (WO 2017092902, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 15, Diensthuber disclose three pitches but does not expressly disclose their pitch lengths; 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 maximum pitch of the tread pattern elements is comprised between 22 and 50 mm since Brockmann, similarly directed towards a directional tread pattern, teaches a tread having three pitches wherein the longest pitch P is 34 to 38 mm with the pitch pattern configured for lower rolling noise, uniform wear, and balanced push-pull behavior([0015,0028,0031]). One would have been motivated to employ pitch lengths known to be suitable to reduce noise and provide uniform wear and balanced push-pull behavior.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diensthuber (WO2018/157952, with English machine translation) in view of Ishino (US 20180093534) and Ikeda (US 20080223495) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mosnier (US 20180022163).
Regarding claim 17, Diensthuber does not expressly disclose the glass transition temperature and complex dynamic shear modulus of the tread rubber; 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 tread rubber as claimed since Mosnier, similarly directed towards a directional tire tread, teaches configuring the tread rubber with glass transition temperature of -40C to -15C and shear modulus G* at 60C of 0.5 to 1.1 MPa to allow use under wintry conditions with very cold temperatures without deterioration of the performance ([0027-0028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Diensthuber and Ishino fail to disclose the first/second portions as extending from circumferentially oriented first/second v-shaped grooves at the first/second sidewalls of the tire.
Upon further search and consideration, Examiner has made new grounds of rejection in view of Ikeda (US 20080223495). Ikeda discloses tread elements extending from circumferential v-shaped grooves at the sidewall of the tire (see recess 15 in [0040-0046], Fig. 5a).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights