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 Amendment received January 30, 2026 has been entered. The amendments to the claims have overcome some of the rejections under 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed October 29, 2025. Claims 1 and 3-21 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 20 be found allowable, claim 21 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 § 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 1 and 3-21 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 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 7. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each opening’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 9. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each opening’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 11. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each opening’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the depression" in line 14. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each depression’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end flank" in line 16. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each end flank’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 24. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each opening’.
Claim 3 is indefinite due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the depression" in line 1. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each depression’.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the inner base portion" in line 2. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each inner base portion’.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the end flank" in lines 2-3. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each end flank’.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the outer base portion" in line 2. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each outer base portion’.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the outer base portion" in line 2. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each outer base portion’.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the inner base portion" in line 2. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each inner base portion’.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the outer base portion" in line 1. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each outer base portion’.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the outer base portion" in line 1. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each outer base portion’.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the depression" in line 1. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each depression’.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the outer base portion" in line 1. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each outer base portion’.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the depression" in line 1. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each depression’.
Claim 15 is indefinite due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 7. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each opening’.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 9. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each opening’.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 11. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each opening’.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the depression" in line 14. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each depression’.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the end flank" in line 16. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each end flank’.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the depression" in line 23. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each depression’.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the depression" in line 31. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each depression’.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the outer base portion" in line 34. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each outer base portion’.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the depression" in line 1. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each depression’.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 1. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each opening’.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 1. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each opening’.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 7. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each opening’.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 9. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each opening’.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the depression" in line 11. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each depression’.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the end flank" in line 13. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each end flank’.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the depression" in line 20. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each depression’.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the outer base portion" in line 31. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each outer base portion’.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the depression" in line 33. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each depression’.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 37. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each opening’.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 1. For proper antecedent basis this should be corrected to ‘each opening’.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, 15, 16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-111342 (Li) in view of JP 5144116 B2 (Daisuke), machine translations previously provided.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a pneumatic vehicle tire comprising sidewalls and a tread with at least one shoulder-side profile rib (Rs) delimited by a circumferential groove (4) with a rib outer surface and a shoulder flank extending to the respective sidewall (see Figures 1 and 2);
Wherein the shoulder-side profile rib is provided with depressions (10), which proceed from the shoulder flank and each of the depressions has an opening on the rib outer surface (see Figures 1 and 2, lines 94-100 machine translation);
Wherein the opening is delimited on an inner side of the tread by a first delimiting edge lying completely within the shoulder-side profile rib (Rs) (see Figures 1 and 2), and in the circumferential direction by two second delimiting edges (see annotated Figure 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
637
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the opening of the depression, when viewed from above, is elongate-trapezoidal in the axial direction having a shorter base side within the shoulder-side profile rib and a longer base side on the shoulder flank (see annotated Figure 1 below and Figure 2, see also Figure 10 showing alternative shape of component 10);
PNG
media_image2.png
362
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein the depression has an end flank, proceeding from the first deliming edge, and a base (see annotated Figure 2 below)
PNG
media_image3.png
385
827
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein the end flank, when viewed from above in the cross section running perpendicular to the first delimiting edge, runs at an angle (see Figure 1), and wherein the base, when viewed from above in the cross section aligned perpendicularly to the first delimiting edge, consists of an inner base portion running at constant depth, an outer base portion extending at an angle in relation to the radial direction, and a middle base portion which is outwardly convex in an arcuate manner and tangentially adjoins the inner base portion, the outer base portion and the middle base portion (see annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
385
886
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Li also discloses that the width of the opening of the depression decreases continuously in the direction of the inner side of the tread, so that the width has its maximum value at the tread outer ends of the second delimiting edges and its minimum value at the tread inner end of the second delimiting edges (see Figure 1).
While Li does not state that the end flank runs at an angle of 8 degrees to 20 degrees in relation to the radial direction, or that the outer base portion extends at an angle of 30-60 degrees in relation to the radial direction; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 2 shows that the end flank runs at an angle on the order of greater than 8 degrees (see annotated Figure 2 below). Figure 2 also shows that the outer base portion extends at an angle on the order of greater than 30 degrees in relation to the radial direction (see annotated Figure 2 below). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image5.png
387
888
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Li does not disclose the width of the opening between the second delimiting edges is from 10.0-30.0 mm in the circumferential direction of the depressions; however, Daisuke discloses a tire provided with analogous depressions (24) proceeding from the shoulder flank and having openings on the rib outer surface (see Figure 1). Daisuke teaches that providing such depressions with a width within the range of 0-25 mm helps prevent uneven wear (see machine translation paragraph 0020), which overlaps the claimed range of 10.0-30.0 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date provide the shoulder rib depressions of Li with a width from 0-25 mm in order to prevent uneven wear, as taught by Daisuke. In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Regarding claim 3, while Li does not state that the minimum value of the width is 40-60%; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 1 shows that the minimum value of the width is on the order of around half (or 50%) of the maximum width value (see annotated Figure 1 below), which overlaps the claimed range. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image6.png
362
452
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, while Li does not state that the opening of the depression has a maximum length, determined at the level of the rib outer surface and projected in the axial direction, of 30-50% of the maximum width of the shoulder-side profile rib, determined at the level of the rib outer surface and projected in the axial direction; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 1 shows that the depression has a maximum length, determined at the level of the rib outer surface and projected in the axial direction, is on the order of around half (or 50%) of the maximum width of the shoulder-side profile rib, which overlaps the claimed range. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 5, while Li does not state that the constant depth at which the inner base portion runs is 50-80% of the profile depth; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 2 shows that the depth of the inner base portion is on the order of around half (or 50%) of the profile depth, which overlaps the claimed range. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 6, while Li does not state that the end flank runs at an angle of 10 degrees to 15 degrees in relation to the radial direction; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 2 shows that the end flank runs at an angle on the order of greater than 10 degrees (see annotated Figure 2 below). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image5.png
387
888
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, while Li does not state that the outer base portion extends at an angle of 45-55 degrees in relation to the radial direction; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 2 shows that the outer base portion extends at an angle on the order of greater than 45 degrees in relation to the radial direction (see annotated Figure 2 below). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image5.png
387
888
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, while Li does not state that when viewed from above in the cross section aligned perpendicularly to the first delimiting edge, the outer base portion has a length, determined parallel to the rib outer surface of 27 to 37% of the length of the base; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 2 shows that the outer base portion comprises approximately 1/3 (or approximately 33%) of the length of the base (see annotated Figure 2, which includes dashed lines indicating base portions), which is within the claimed range of 27 to 37%. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image7.png
387
909
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, while Li does not state that when viewed from above in the cross section aligned perpendicularly to the first delimiting edge, the inner base portion has a length, determined parallel to the rib outer surface of 27 to 37% of the base; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 2 shows that the inner base portion comprises approximately 1/3 (or approximately 33%) of the length of the base (see annotated Figure 2 above, which includes dashed lines indicating base portions), which is within the claimed range of 27 to 37%. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 10, Li also discloses that the outer base portion, when viewed from above in the cross section aligned perpendicularly to the first delimiting edge, ends at the shoulder flank (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Li also discloses that the outer base portion ends in front of the shoulder flank at a spacing of up to 3.0 mm determined parallel to the rib outer surface (see Figure 2, which shows the outer base portion ends approximately at the shoulder flank or slightly before, yielding a spacing of around 0 mm, which is within the claimed range of up to 3.0 mm).
Regarding claim 15, Li also discloses that the shoulder-side circumferential groove, when viewed from above runs in a zigzag shape and is composed of groove portions which run in each case at an angle in relation to the circumferential direction, wherein the shoulder-side circumferential groove at the groove portions has in each case a bending point with a bend inner side and a bend outer side, wherein the depressions are in each case located so as to be axially beside a bend inner side (see Figure 1).
While Li does not state that the groove portions run at an angle of 15 degrees to 30 degrees in relation to the circumferential direction, this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 1 shows that the zigzag groove portions of Li run at an angle on the order of less than 30 degrees (see annotated Figure 1 below, including dashed line indicating circumferential direction). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image8.png
637
518
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses a pneumatic vehicle tire comprising sidewalls and a tread with at least one shoulder-side profile rib (Rs) delimited by a circumferential groove (4) with a rib outer surface and a shoulder flank extending to the respective sidewall (see Figures 1 and 2);
Wherein the shoulder-side profile rib is provided with depressions (10), which proceed from the shoulder flank and have an opening on the rib outer surface (see Figures 1 and 2, lines 94-100 machine translation);
Wherein the opening is delimited on an inner side of the tread by a first delimiting edge lying completely within the shoulder-side profile rib (Rs) (see Figures 1 and 2), and in the circumferential direction by two second delimiting edges (see annotated Figure 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
637
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the opening, when viewed from above, is elongate-rectangular in the axial direction or elongate-trapezoidal in the axial direction having a shorter base side within the shoulder-side profile rib and a longer base side on the shoulder flank (see annotated Figure 1 below);
PNG
media_image9.png
362
455
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Wherein the depression has an end flank, proceeding from the first delimiting edge, and a base (see annotated Figure 2 below)
PNG
media_image3.png
385
827
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein the end flank, when viewed from above in the cross section running perpendicular to the first delimiting edge, runs at an angle (see Figure 1), and wherein the base, when viewed from above in the cross section aligned perpendicularly to the first delimiting edge, consists of an inner base portion running at constant depth, an outer base portion extending at an angle in relation to the radial direction, and a middle base portion which is outwardly convex in an arcuate manner and tangentially adjoins the inner and outer base portions (see annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
385
886
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Li also discloses that the circumferential groove is a shoulder side circumferential groove (see Figure 1).
Li also discloses that the outer base portion ends in front of the shoulder flank at a spacing of up to 3.0 mm determined parallel to the rib outer surface (see Figure 2, which shows the outer base portion ends approximately at the shoulder flank or slightly before, yielding a spacing of around 0 mm, which is within the claimed range of up to 3.0 mm).
While Li does not state that the end flank runs at an angle of 8 degrees to 20 degrees in relation to the radial direction, or that the outer base portion extends at an angle of 30-60 degrees in relation to the radial direction; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 2 shows that the end flank runs at an angle on the order of greater than 8 degrees (see annotated Figure 2 below). Figure 2 also shows that the outer base portion extends at an angle on the order of greater than 30 degrees in relation to the radial direction (see annotated Figure 2 below). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image5.png
387
888
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Li also discloses that the width of the opening of the depression decreases continuously in the direction of the inner side of the tread, so that the width has its maximum value at the tread outer ends of the second delimiting edges and its minimum value at the tread inner end of the second delimiting edges (see Figure 1).
While Li also does not state that the minimum value of the width is 40-60%; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 1 shows that the minimum value of the width is on the order of around half (or 50%) of the maximum width value (see annotated Figure 1 below), which overlaps the claimed range. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image6.png
362
452
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Li also discloses that the circumferential groove, when viewed from above runs in a zigzag shape and is composed of groove portions which run in each case at an angle in relation to the circumferential direction, wherein the shoulder-side circumferential groove at the groove portions has in each case a bending point with a bend inner side and a bend outer side, wherein the depressions are in each case located so as to be axially beside a bend inner side (see Figure 1).
While Li does not state that the groove portions run at an angle of 15 degrees to 30 degrees in relation to the circumferential direction, this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 1 shows that the zigzag groove portions of Li run at an angle on the order of less than 30 degrees (see annotated Figure 1 below, including dashed line indicating circumferential direction). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image8.png
637
518
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Li does not disclose the width of the opening between the second delimiting edges is from 10.0-30.0 mm in the circumferential direction of the depressions; however, Daisuke discloses a tire provided with analogous depressions (24) proceeding from the shoulder flank and having openings on the rib outer surface (see Figure 1). Daisuke teaches that providing such depressions with a width within the range of 0-25 mm helps prevent uneven wear (see machine translation paragraph 0020), which overlaps the claimed range of 10.0-30.0 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date provide the shoulder rib depressions of Li with a width from 0-25 mm in order to prevent uneven wear, as taught by Daisuke. In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Regarding claim 18, Li also discloses that the opening, when viewed from above, is elongate-rectangular (oblong) in the axial direction (see annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image10.png
362
455
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Li also discloses that the opening, when viewed from above, is elongate-trapezoidal (oblong) in the axial direction (see annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image10.png
362
455
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Li discloses a pneumatic vehicle tire comprising sidewalls and a tread with at least one shoulder-side profile rib (Rs) delimited by a circumferential groove (4) with a rib outer surface and a shoulder flank extending to the respective sidewall (see Figures 1 and 2);
Wherein the shoulder-side profile rib is provided with depressions (10), which proceed from the shoulder flank and each of the depressions has an opening on the rib outer surface (see Figures 1 and 2, lines 94-100 machine translation);
Wherein the opening is delimited on an inner side of the tread by a first delimiting edge lying completely within the shoulder-side profile rib (Rs) (see Figures 1 and 2), and in the circumferential direction by two second delimiting edges (see annotated Figure 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
637
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the depression has an end flank, proceeding from the first deliming edge, and a base (see annotated Figure 2 below)
PNG
media_image3.png
385
827
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein the end flank, when viewed from above in the cross section running perpendicular to the first delimiting edge, runs at an angle (see Figure 1), and wherein the base, when viewed from above in the cross section aligned perpendicularly to the first delimiting edge, consists of an inner base portion running at constant depth, an outer base portion extending at an angle in relation to the radial direction, and a middle base portion which is outwardly convex in an arcuate manner and tangentially adjoins the inner base portion, the outer base portion and the middle base portion (see annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
385
886
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Li also discloses that the width of the opening of the depression decreases continuously in the direction of the inner side of the tread, so that the width has its maximum value at the tread outer ends of the second delimiting edges and its minimum value at the tread inner end of the second delimiting edges (see Figure 1).
Li also discloses that the circumferential groove, when viewed from above runs in a zigzag shape and is composed of groove portions which run in each case at an angle in relation to the circumferential direction, wherein the shoulder-side circumferential groove at the groove portions has in each case a bending point with a bend inner side and a bend outer side, wherein the depressions are in each case located so as to be axially beside a bend inner side (see Figure 1).
Li also discloses that the circumferential groove is a shoulder side circumferential groove (see Figure 1).
Li also discloses that the outer base portion ends in front of the shoulder flank at a spacing of up to 3.0 mm determined parallel to the rib outer surface (see Figure 2, which shows the outer base portion ends approximately at the shoulder flank or slightly before, yielding a spacing of around 0 mm, which is within the claimed range of up to 3.0 mm).
The opening of Li is generally elongate-rectangular in the axial direction (see Figure 1).
While Li does not state that the groove portions run at an angle of 15 degrees to 30 degrees in relation to the circumferential direction, this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 1 shows that the zigzag groove portions of Li run at an angle on the order of less than 30 degrees (see annotated Figure 1 below, including dashed line indicating circumferential direction). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image8.png
637
518
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Li does not disclose the width of the opening between the second delimiting edges is from 10.0-30.0 mm in the circumferential direction of the depressions; however, Daisuke discloses a tire provided with analogous depressions (24) proceeding from the shoulder flank and having openings on the rib outer surface (see Figure 1). Daisuke teaches that providing such depressions with a width within the range of 0-25 mm helps prevent uneven wear (see machine translation paragraph 0020), which overlaps the claimed range of 10.0-30.0 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date provide the shoulder rib depressions of Li with a width from 0-25 mm in order to prevent uneven wear, as taught by Daisuke. In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
While Li does not state that the end flank runs at an angle of 8 degrees to 20 degrees in relation to the radial direction, or that the outer base portion extends at an angle of 30-60 degrees in relation to the radial direction; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 2 shows that the end flank runs at an angle on the order of greater than 8 degrees (see annotated Figure 2 below). Figure 2 also shows that the outer base portion extends at an angle on the order of greater than 30 degrees in relation to the radial direction (see annotated Figure 2 below). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image5.png
387
888
media_image5.png
Greyscale
While Li does not state that the minimum value of the width is 40-60%; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 1 shows that the minimum value of the width is on the order of around half (or 50%) of the maximum width value (see annotated Figure 1 below), which overlaps the claimed range. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image6.png
362
452
media_image6.png
Greyscale
While Li does not state that the groove portions run at an angle of 15 degrees to 30 degrees in relation to the circumferential direction, this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 1 shows that the zigzag groove portions of Li run at an angle on the order of less than 30 degrees (see annotated Figure 1 below, including dashed line indicating circumferential direction). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image8.png
637
518
media_image8.png
Greyscale
While Li does not state that the end flank runs at an angle of 10 degrees to 15 degrees in relation to the radial direction; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 2 shows that the end flank runs at an angle on the order of greater than 10 degrees (see annotated Figure 2 below). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image5.png
387
888
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Li also discloses that the opening of the depression, when viewed from above, is elongate-rectangular (oblong) in the axial direction (see annotated Figure 1 below and Figure 2; see also Figure 10 showing an alternative shape of component 10);
PNG
media_image11.png
362
455
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-111342 (Li) in view of JP 5144116 B2 (Daisuke) further in view of JP 59-89205 (Takahashi) (machine translations previously provided).
Li in view of Daisuke discloses a tire as discussed above. The references do not state that the depressions have lateral surfaces which proceed from the second delimiting edge and, when viewed from above in the cross section aligned perpendicularly to the associated second delimiting edge, run at an angle of 8 degrees to 25 degrees, in relation to the radial direction. However, Takahashi discloses an analogous tire provided with depressions along the shoulder-side profile rib. Takahashi teaches setting the lateral surfaces of second delimiting edges at an angle of 25 degrees or more, helps to greatly suppress crack generation rate (see Figures 5a, 6a and machine translation lines 90-94 where angle G(beta) of 115 degrees or more in circumferential direction is discussed. The angle in relation to the radial direction would be 115-90=25), which is within the claimed range of 8-25 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the lateral surfaces proceeding from the second deliming edges of Li with an angle of 25 degrees in order to suppress the crack generation rate, as taught by Takahashi.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0014404 (von der Wall) in view of JP 5144116 B2 (Daisuke), machine translations previously provided.
Regarding claim 1, von der Wall discloses a pneumatic vehicle tire comprising sidewalls and a tread with at least one shoulder-side profile rib (3) delimited by a circumferential groove (2) with a rib outer surface and a shoulder flank extending to the respective sidewall (see Figures 1 and 2);
Wherein the shoulder-side profile rib is provided with depressions (4), which proceed from the shoulder flank and have an opening on the rib outer surface (see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph 0007 machine translation);
Wherein the opening is delimited on an inner side of the tread by a first delimiting edge lying completely within the shoulder-side profile rib (3) (see Figures 1 and 2), and in the circumferential direction by two second delimiting edges (see annotated Figure 1 below);
PNG
media_image12.png
466
522
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Wherein the opening, when viewed from above, is elongate-trapezoidal in the axial direction in the axial direction having a shorter base side within the shoulder-side profile rib and a longer base side on the shoulder flank(see annotated Figures 1 and 2 below);
PNG
media_image13.png
614
544
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Wherein the depression has an end flank, proceeding from the first deliming edge, and a base (see annotated Figure 1 below)
PNG
media_image14.png
338
547
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Wherein the end flank, when viewed from above in the cross section running perpendicular to the first delimiting edge, runs at an angle (see Figure 1), and wherein the base, when viewed from above in the cross section aligned perpendicularly to the first delimiting edge, consists of an inner base portion running at constant depth, an outer base portion extending at an angle in relation to the radial direction, and a middle base portion which is outwardly convex in an arcuate manner and tangentially adjoins the inner base portions, the outer base portions and the middle base portions base portions (see annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image15.png
338
585
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Wherein the width of the opening of the depression decreases continuously in the direction of an inner side of the tread, the width has its maximum value at tread outer ends of the second delimiting edges and its minimum value at tread inner ends of the second delimiting edges (see annotated Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image16.png
466
522
media_image16.png
Greyscale
While von der Wall does not state that the end flank runs at an angle of 8 degrees to 20 degrees in relation to the radial direction, or that the outer base portion extends at an angle of 30-60 degrees in relation to the radial direction; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 1 shows that the end flank runs at an angle on the order of greater than 8 degrees (see annotated Figure 1 below). Figure 1 also shows that the outer base portion extends at an angle on the order of greater than 30 degrees in relation to the radial direction (see annotated Figure 1 below). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image17.png
338
547
media_image17.png
Greyscale
von der Wall does not disclose the width of the opening between the second delimiting edges is from 10.0-30.0 mm in the circumferential direction of the depressions; however, Daisuke discloses a tire provided with analogous depressions (24) proceeding from the shoulder flank and having openings on the rib outer surface (see Figure 1). Daisuke teaches that providing such depressions with a width within the range of 0-25 mm helps prevent uneven wear (see machine translation paragraph 0020), which overlaps the claimed range of 10.0-30.0 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date provide the shoulder rib depressions of von der Wall with a width from 0-25 mm in order to prevent uneven wear, as taught by Daisuke. In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Regarding claim 3, while von der Wall does not state that the minimum value of the width is 40-60%; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 2 shows that the minimum value of the width is on the order of around half (or 50%) of the maximum width value (see annotated Figure 2 below), which overlaps the claimed range. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image18.png
466
522
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, while von der Wall does not state that the opening of the depression has a maximum length, determined at the level of the rib outer surface and projected in the axial direction, of 30-50% of the maximum width of the shoulder-side profile rib, determined at the level of the rib outer surface and projected in the axial direction; this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Figure 2 shows that the depression has a maximum length, determined at the level of the rib outer surface and projected in the axial direction, is on the order of around half (or 50%) of the maximum width of the shoulder-side profile rib, which overlaps the claimed range. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 11, von der Wall also discloses that the outer base portion, when viewed from above in the cross section aligned perpendicularly to the first delimiting edge, ends in front of the shoulder flank at a spacing (9) determined parallel to the rib outer surface (see annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image19.png
331
538
media_image19.png
Greyscale
While von der Wall does not state the size of the spacing of the outer base portion to the shoulder flank, the reference teaches that the recessed sections contribute to increased traction and grip (see machine translation paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the spacing of the outer base portion to the shoulder flank through routine experimentation, in order to achieve a space that provides optimal traction and grip based on the size of the tire. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 12, von der Wall also discloses that the depression at its outer end has an end-side plateau surface which proceeds from the shoulder flank, runs at a constant depth determined in the radial direction, and is elongate in the circumferential direction (see Figure annotated Figure 1 and Figure 2).
PNG
media_image20.png
331
538
media_image20.png
Greyscale
While von der Wall does not state the width of the plateau surface, determined transversely to the circumferential direction, the reference teaches that the recessed sections contribute to increased traction and grip (see machine translation paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the width of the plateau surface through routine experimentation, in order to achieve a space that provides optimal traction and grip based on the size of the tire. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 13, van der Wall also discloses that the outer base portion ends at its end facing the shoulder flank, ends at a full depth (100%) of the profile depth, since Figure 1 shows that the profile depth ends where the outer base portion ends at its end facing the shoulder flank (see annotated Figure 1 below), which is within the claimed range of 90-100% of the profile depth. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
PNG
media_image21.png
338
574
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li and Wall do not disclose the trapezoidal opening of claim 1. While the trapezoidal shape shown by Li and Wall are not identical to that depicted in applicant’s Figure 2, for the reasons discussed above, the openings disclosed in the references are considered trapezoidal and meet the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights