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 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 is inconsistent with claim 1 because claim 1 recites “one or more optional second circumferential grooves” whereas claim 15 recites “one or more second circumferential grooves”. It is unclear what is minimally required in claim 15.
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, 5, 8, 11-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann et al. (US 2023/0158838) in view of Kuroda (US 2003/0116246) and JP’357 (JP 2018-111357).
Regarding claim 1, Baumann et al. teaches a tire comprising a tread including a tread portion (4 or 4’) and two axially outer edge portions (3 or 3’). FIG. 2 illustrates the axially outer edge portions covering at least one of the belts. [0010] teaches the axially outer belt edge has a rubber compound different than the rubber compound in an adjacent portion of the tread to render a more robust tire. As to the last three lines of claim 1, see [0027], [0028], [0035], and [0037].
Baumann et al. is silent to the claimed asymmetric tread pattern. However, providing the claimed asymmetric tread pattern in the tire of Baumann et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 of Kuroda teaches a pneumatic tire comprising an asymmetric tread pattern which satisfies the claimed asymmetric tread pattern for the benefits of steering stability and riding comfort during cornering/turning movements (abstract, [0001]).
Baumann et al. is silent to the claimed concavity having a depth of at most 1.2 mm. However, providing the claimed concavity in the tire of Baumann et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because FIG. 1 of JP’357 teaches a tire comprising a tread having a concave shape when the tire filled with an air pressure of 30 kPa for the benefits of rolling resistance and suppressing uneven wear of the shoulder and center region (abstract) and TABLE 1 of JP’357 teaches Dy-Dc (mm) having values of 1 mm.
Regarding claim 5, see FIG.1 of JP’357.
Regarding claim 8, FIG. 2 of Baumann et al. show two overlay layers in the central portion of the tread (11, 12).
Regarding claim 11, [0024] of Baumann et al. teaches the neighboring portion (tread cap, [0022]) is made of a rubber composition comprising at least 90 phr of at least one diene base elastomer and at least 100 phr of filler. Preferably the filler is within the range of 100 phr to 250 phr wherein at least 40 phr is silica. [0025] further discloses at with at least 150 phr of a filler, at least 90 phr is carbon black, preferably more than 100 phr of carbon black.
Regarding claims 12-13, [0097] of Baumann et al. teaches the overlay may be fiber either of metallic or textile reinforcement and official notice is taken a reinforcement including nylon fiber and aramid fiber in an overlay layer of a tire is conventional.
Regarding claim 14, FIG. 2 of Baumann et al. teaches two belts 9 and 10 and each belt has a metallic reinforcement [0090].
Baumann et al. is silent to the two belts having opposite signs with each other and each belt angle having an absolute values of 10 to 50 degrees with respect to the equatorial plane. However, providing these claimed features in the tire of Baumann et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because providing two belts having opposite signs and angles within the claimed range is conventional as shown by Kuroda ([0026], FIG. 1: reference characters 7, 7A and 7B).
Regarding claim 16, see [0007] of Baumann et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection applied in this office action.
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 KENDRA LY whose telephone number is (571)270-7060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn B Smith 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.
/KENDRA LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights