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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23, last two lines, recites "a serration in which a plurality of ridges each extend linearly along a tire radial direction is arranged parallel to each other in the recessed space." The "serration" appears to be the subject of "is arranged" but then the ridges are the ones parallel to each other. Examiner suggests: --a serration in which a plurality of ridges each extend linearly along a tire radial direction parallel to each other is arranged in the recessed space.--
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 16, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botts (US 3769123) in view of Iwamoto (US 20200406688).
Regarding claim 1, Botts discloses a tire comprising:
a pair of sidewall portions (see tire with sidewalls 12, Fig. 1); and
a raised portion provided in at least one of the sidewall portions and raised outward in a tire axial direction from a reference surface of the at least one of the sidewall portions (see continuous raised circumferential rib 14; col 1, lines 62-68; Fig. 3-4), wherein
the raised portion extends continuously in a tire circumferential direction in an annular shape (rib 14 is continuous, col 1, lines 62-68),
the raised portion includes a tire maximum width position (positioned at maximum width position, see Figs. 3, 4), and
the raised portion is provided with a mark portion including a plurality of characters recessed axially inward (see depressions 16 of letters (col 1, line 62-68, Fig. 1).
Botts does not disclose the sidewall portions as provided with outer raised portions raised axially outward from the reference surface and spaced apart outward in a tire radial direction from the raised portion and an annular portion; 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 tire with outer raised portions and an annular portion since Iwamoto, similarly directed towards a tire, teaches providing the outer sidewall portion with side protectors 10 arranged in the tire circumferential direction and a continuous circumferential protrusion 35 to improve tire rigidity and off-road performance ([0005,0020,0041,0073]). Iwamoto discloses the outer raised portions (side protectors 10) have a maximum height smaller than the maximum height of the annular portion (circumferential protrusion 35)([0073]).
Regarding claim 16, Iwamoto has raised outer portions that are located radially inside the annular portion and connected with the annular portion (side protectors 10 are radially inside and connected to annular protrusion 35, see Figs. 2).
Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the ar prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the outer raised portions with dimensions as claimed since Iwamoto clearly illustrates the circumferential lengths of the side protectors 10 as well within the 40% to 90% range of the circumferential pitch of the side protectors (Fig. 2 clearly shows lengths L1 as more than half the pitch and substantially less than 90%; [0057] discloses grooves widths W1 as 5-20% of length L1, with the grooves separating protectors being slightly larger in width).
Regarding claim 22, the outer raised portions have radially outer ends connected to the annular portion so that the entire outer raised portions are located radially inside the annular portion (side protectors 10 are radially inside annular portion 35, Fig. 1; the claim language does not exclude other protrusion structure radially outside the annular portion).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botts (US 3769123) in view of Iwamoto (US 20200406688) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (US 2020/0009921).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the raised portion of Botts has an outer edge, an inner edge, a middle portion, and a protruding height (see Fig. 3). Botts does not disclose the raised portion as having a protruding height larger at the middle portion than at the outer and inner edges; 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 middle portion with greater height since Yamazaki, similarly directed towards a tire sidewall, teaches providing a raised sidewall portion with a hemispherical middle portion and curved end portions to protect the sidewall from wear, reduce rubber volume of the protrusion, and relax stress concentration at the end portions ([0067], Fig. 7). As to the protruding height, the embodiment of Fig. 7 clearly has a protruding height in the middle portion that is well below 4 or less times the protruding heights of the outer and inner edges.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botts (US 3769123) in view of Iwamoto (US 20200406688) and Yamazaki (US 20200009921) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Soma (US 4120337).
Regarding claim 4, Botts does not disclose the protrusion height relative to the tire thickness; 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 height as 5 to 50% of the tire thickness since Soma, similarly directed towards a tire with annular sidewall rib, teaches configuring the height d1 of the rib as 0.7 to 1.4 times the sidewall thickness (not including the rib) to provide protection without lowering running performance and durability (col 6, lines 18-28)--the height to total thickness being (d1 / (d1+d) = 0.7/1.7 - 1.4/2.4 = 41-58%, said range overlapping the claimed range.
Claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botts (US 3769123) in view of Iwamoto (US 20200406688) and Yamazaki (US 20200009921) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oizumi (US 20210162818).
Regarding claims 4 and 21, Botts does not disclose the protrusion height relative to the tire thickness. In the same filed of endeavor of tire sidewalls having protrusions, Oizumi teaches a tire having a protrusion portion 11 wherein the height of the protrusion portion is such that a ratio Wt/Ws between a rubber thickness Ws at a portion without the protrusion portion and a rubber thickness Wt at a portion with the protrusion portion is 1.2 to 2.0 ([0030]). This equates to a protrusion thickness to total rubber thickness (with protrusion) ratio of 17% to 50% ([Wt-Ws]/Wt = 1-Ws/Wt = 1 - 1/[Wt/Ws]), which overlaps the claimed range. Oizumi discloses the thickness range provides for improved visibility without impacting the uniformity ([0030]).
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 height as 5 to 50% (claim 4) or 5 to 35% (claim 21) of the tire thickness since Oizumi, similarly directed towards a tire with sidewall projections, teaches configuring the height of the protrusion portions such that a ratio Wt/Ws between a rubber thickness Ws at a portion without the protrusion portion and a rubber thickness Wt at a portion with the protrusion portion is 1.2 to 2.0, which equates to a protruding height/tire thickness ratio of 17 to 50%, to improve visibility without impacting the uniformity ([0030]), said range overlapping the claimed range.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botts (US 3769123) in view of Iwamoto (US 20200406688) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakajima (US 20190291517).
Regarding claim 5, the mark portion in Botts includes a recessed space. Botts does not disclose the depth of the recessed space of the marking relative to the rib protruding height; 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 depth as 30 to 80% since Nakajima, similarly directed towards a tire sidewall marking, teaches providing a recessed character 4 within a protruding base portion 5 wherein the depth of the recessed character Dx is equal to or less than the height H5 of the protruding base portion to secure strength of the sidewall portion ([0027]), thus suggesting a depth of less than 100%, which overlaps the claimed range. Examiner also notes that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(I)). One would have been motivated to configure the depth based on the aesthetic design of the character marking and structural strength of the sidewall.
Claim 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botts (US 3769123) in view of Iwamoto (US 20200406688) as applied above, and further in view of Iwabuchi (JP 2019-218027, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Botts raised portion includes an outward surface facing outward in the tire radial direction and a recessed space recessed axially inward from the outward surface. Botts does not disclose the mark as provided with a serration in which a plurality of ridges are arranged in the recessed space; 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 recessed space with serrations since Iwabuchi, similarly directed towards a tire sidewall marking, teaches providing a recessed marking with serrations to affect the light reflectivity and visibility of the mark ([0008-0009,0034-0042, Figs. 3-6]).
As to claim 7, 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 ridges with height of 30 to 70% of the recess depth since Iwabuchi discloses the recessed portion as having a depth of 1.5 mm ([0096]) and the height of the serrations as 0.1 to 1.0 mm ([0046])--thus, yielding a height of 7 to 67%, said range overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Botts clearly illustrates the recessed space as having a radial length that is more than 50% of the radial length of the raised portion. Additionally, 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 adjusted the radial length of the recessed space to control the visibility and aesthetics of the marking--larger lettering provides for greater visibility.
Claims 9, 14, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botts (US 3769123) in view of Iwamoto (US 20200406688) as applied above, and further in view of McDonald (US 4343342).
Regarding claim 9, while Botts does not expressly disclose the ratio of radial length to tire section height of the raised portion, Botts does clearly illustrates the raised portion as occupying a fraction of the tire section height that is well within the 5% to 30% range. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the raised portion is provided for decorative effect and to display lettering with contrasting appearance. It is within the purview of a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the size of the decorative rib to obtain a desired visibility and aesthetic effect. For example, McDonald, similarly directed towards a tire, teaches providing a raised marking portion on a tire sidewall to display information (col 1, lines 7-17, 52-59). McDonald discloses the radial width of the decorative band 36 is "of course, being a matter of choice" (col 3, lines 38-42).
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 raised portion as 5% to 30% of the section height since (1) Botts clearly illustrates the raised portion as occupying a small portion of the tire section height that is well within the 30% range (see Fig. 1 and 3 wherein raised portion is depicted on sidewall) and (2) the raised portion is provided for decorative effect and to display lettering with contrasting appearance, and one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the radial length of the raised portion based on aesthetic design choice to achieve desired visibility/decorative effect (McDonald discloses width of decorative band is matter of design choice, col 3, lines 38-42). Examiner notes that there has not been a showing of unexpected results regarding the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Botts does not expressly disclose the raised portion as having a middle position in the tire radial direction located radially outside the tire maximum width position; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date since McDonald, similarly directed towards a tire sidewall with decorative band, teaches locating the position of a decorative band at or outwardly of the line or area of the maximum tire section width in order to maximize the legibility of the indicia markings (col 5, lines 17-32), said range overlapping the claimed position.
Regarding claim 19, as to the length of the outer raised portion relative to the raised portion, Botts does not expressly disclose the radial length of the raised portion. Examiner notes that the raised portion is provided for decorative effect and to display lettering with contrasting appearance. McDonald, similarly directed towards a tire, teaches providing a raised marking portion on a tire sidewall to display information and discloses the radial width of the decorative band 36 is "of course, being a matter of choice" (col 1, lines 7-17, 52-59, col 3, lines 38-42). Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 raised portion with radial length greater than the radial length of the outer raised portions since the raised portion of Botts is provided as a decorative band to display information with contrasting appearance and one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the decorative band larger in radial length to increase the visibility of the band and information displayed (McDonald discloses radial size of decorative band is matter of design choice; col 3, lines 38-42).
Regarding claim 24, Botts discloses a tire comprising:
a pair of sidewall portions (see tire with sidewalls 12, Fig. 1); and
a raised portion provided in at least one of the sidewall portions and raised outward in a tire axial direction from a reference surface of the at least one of the sidewall portions (see continuous raised circumferential rib 14; col 1, lines 62-68; Fig. 3-4), wherein
the raised portion extends continuously in a tire circumferential direction in an annular shape (rib 14 is continuous, col 1, lines 62-68),
the raised portion includes a tire maximum width position (positioned at maximum width position, see Figs. 3, 4), and
the raised portion is provided with a mark portion including a plurality of characters recessed axially inward (see depressions 16 of letters (col 1, line 62-68, Fig. 1).
Botts does not disclose the sidewall portions as provided with outer raised portions raised axially outward from the reference surface and spaced apart outward in a tire radial direction from the raised portion; 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 tire with outer raised portions since Iwamoto, similarly directed towards a tire, teaches providing the outer sidewall portion with side protectors 10 arranged in the tire circumferential direction and a continuous circumferential protrusion 35 to improve tire rigidity and off-road performance ([0005,0020,0041,0073]).
As to the length of the outer raised portion relative to the raised portion, Botts does not expressly disclose the radial length of the raised portion. Examiner notes that the raised portion is provided for decorative effect and to display lettering with contrasting appearance. McDonald, similarly directed towards a tire, teaches providing a raised marking portion on a tire sidewall to display information and discloses the radial width of the decorative band 36 is "of course, being a matter of choice" (col 1, lines 7-17, 52-59, col 3, lines 38-42). Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 raised portion with radial length relative to the radial length of the outer raised portions as claimed since the raised portion of Botts is provided as a decorative band to display information with contrasting appearance and one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the decorative band larger in radial length to increase the visibility of the band and information displayed (McDonald discloses radial size of decorative band is matter of design choice; col 3, lines 38-42).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botts (US 3769123) in view of Iwamoto (US 20200406688) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakano (US 20210197627).
Regarding claim 12, Botts and Iwamoto do not disclose the recited height relationship; 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 height of the outer raised portions as equal to or smaller than the height of the middle portion of the raised portion since Nakano, similarly directed towards a tire sidewall, teaches a tire having a raised portion similar to Botts (see Fig. 2, band 12) and an outer raised portion 11 and discloses the height h3 of the raised portion as greater than the height h2 of the outer raised portion to make it more difficult for the colored rubber to move toward the first protruding portion ([0045]).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botts (US 3769123) in view of Iwamoto (US 20200406688) as applied above, and further in view of Kendziorra (DE102020205745, with English machine translation).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Botts does not disclose a first rubber portion forming the raised portion with higher hardness than a second rubber portion forming the reference surface; 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 raised portion with higher hardness since Kendziorra, similarly directed towards a tire, teaches configuring raised elements with rubber compound of hardness of 65-75 Shore A while common sidewall components have hardness of 50-60 Shore A ([0015]). Kendziorra discloses that a harder rubber compound has higher abrasion resistance and provides protective function against curbs ([0015]). One would have been motivated to configure the protrusion portion of Yamazaki with harder rubber to provide abrasion resistance and protection against curbs. As to claim 20, the difference in hardnesses between the hard rubber compound and common sidewall compounds overlaps the claimed range (5 to 15 hardness difference).
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botts (US 3769123) in view of Miyazaki (US 2022/0324267) and Fujioka (US 2010/0051159).
Regarding claim 1, Botts discloses a tire comprising:
a pair of sidewall portions (see tire with sidewalls 12, Fig. 1); and
a raised portion provided in at least one of the sidewall portions and raised outward in a tire axial direction from a reference surface of the at least one of the sidewall portions (see continuous raised circumferential rib 14; col 1, lines 62-68; Fig. 3-4), wherein
the raised portion extends continuously in a tire circumferential direction in an annular shape (rib 14 is continuous, col 1, lines 62-68),
the raised portion includes a tire maximum width position (positioned at maximum width position, see Figs. 3, 4), and
the raised portion is provided with a mark portion including a plurality of characters recessed axially inward (see depressions 16 of letters (col 1, line 62-68, Fig. 1).
Botts does not disclose the mark portion is provided with a serration in which a plurality of ridges each extend linearly along a tire radial direction and parallel to each other is arranged in the recessed space. Examiner notes that it is well known and conventional in the art to provide a serration in the body of a marking as shown for example by Miyazaki and Fujioka. 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 mark with a serration within the recessed portion in view of (1) Miyazaki, similarly directed towards a tire having sidewall markings, teaches providing recessed markings with a serrations in the form of radially extending ridges ([0025,0029]) and (2) Fujioka, similarly directed towards a tire having sidewall markings, teaches providing a serration within an inner portion of a mark (recessed from surrounding protruding portions) to make the gloss of the inner portion different and increase the contrast and visibility of the marking ([0014]). One would have been motivated to provide a serration to increase contrast in the marking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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