Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/788,408

HIGH-PERFORMANCE TIRE, TIRE MOLD AND PROCESS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 30, 2024
Examiner
LY, KENDRA
Art Unit
1749
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
329 granted / 570 resolved
-7.3% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
607
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
61.4%
+21.4% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 570 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/16/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 requires “the surface of the tread portion has a profile with a concave shape over part of its width when the tire is cured and in use on a vehicle”. The original specification of the instant application fails to recite and/or convey this claimed limitation to one skilled in the art at the time the application was filed. First, it is acknowledged that the cured tire of instant application has a tread having a concave shape because the concave shape is formed in a mold during the curing process as shown in FIG. 3. FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 illustrates a concave shape on the surface of the tread. However, FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 fails to illustrate or describe the state of the tire (i.e. inflated and installed on the vehicle). The original specification fails to convey that the concave shape of the tread is present when the tire is inflated and mounted to a vehicle. [0011] of the original specification states that the tread of the tire has a concavity for optimizing tire footprints. [00113] states simulations of footprints of reference tires and inventive tires has been prepared and compared. [00114] states simulations showed the concave shape of the inventive tire obtained similar footprints as for the reinforced tired. These description fail to convey the concave shape is present in the tread during the tire is inflated and mounted to a vehicle. The remaining claims are rejected because they are dependent claims of rejected claim 1. 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 2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 15 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 2 recites “wherein the tread portion comprises a tread pattern with first circumferential grooves that axially delimit the first shoulder portion and the second shoulder portion with respect to the central portion of the tread;” which is already required in claim 1. It is unclear what structure is required by the repeated limitation and deletion is advised. Claim 4 recites “wherein the tread portion comprises a tread pattern with first circumferential grooves and one or more optional second circumferential grooves, the second circumferential grooves when present being arranged in the central portion;” which is already required in claim 1. It is unclear what structure is required by the repeated limitation and deletion is advised. Claim 6 recites “wherein the tire has an asymmetric tread” which is already required in claim 1. It is unclear what structure is required by the repeated limitation and deletion is advised. Claims 8-10 recites “wherein it comprises”. It is unclear what “it” is referring to. Claim 15 recites “wherein the tread portion further comprises a tread pattern” which is already required in claim 1. It is unclear what structure is required by the repeated limitation. Change to the claim limitation to --the tread pattern--. Prior Art of Interest JP 2018-111357: FIG. 1 teaches a tire comprising a tread having a concave shape when the tire is filled with an air pressure of 30 kPa. FIG. 2 teaches the concave shape shown in FIG. 1 being no longer present when the tire is filled with an air pressure of 240 kPa. In other words, the tread portion having the concave shape bulges outward in the tire radial direction from FIG. 1 and FIG. 2. See page 4 of the machine translation. JP 06-171304: FIG. 1 teaches a tire having a tread with a concave shape 10. FIG. 2 shows the concave shape of the tread present during a grounding state of the tread. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 30, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 08, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Feb 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 18, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600177
Tire Comprising at Least One Sidewall with a Protective Protuberance
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12573653
ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL, POWER GENERATION METHOD USING ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF HYDROGEN GAS USING ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12552204
PNEUMATIC TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12545055
TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539717
PNEUMATIC TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+18.4%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 570 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month