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 .
1) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3-16-26 has been entered.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Europe 231 (EP 2,977,231) and optionally Korea 809 (KR 438809 Y1).
Europe 231 discloses a pneumatic tire (tire size 205/55R16) suitably used as a winter tire having a tread comprising a stud having a pin 2 and a body 1 wherein the pin is inserted in the stud body and projects out of the stud body [FIGURES 1, 6]. The pin 2 may have a symmetrical V shaped polygonal cross section having six sides. FIGURE 5A of Europe 231 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
408
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The convex side of the V shaped pin defines an “angle α1” and the concave side of the V shaped side of the V shaped pin defines an “angle α2”. The concave side of the V shaped pin forms a recess 2A. FIGURE 5A illustrates angle α1 = angle α2. FIGURE 5A illustrates angle α2 being about 130 degrees; this angle of about 130 degrees falling within the range 90o < α2 < 170o [claim 1] and falling within the range 95o < α2 < 165o [claim 6]. Europe 231 teaches 1.0 < Ld1/Ld2 < 3.0 and 0.1 < Ld3/Ld1 < 0.4 [paragraphs 26-30]. In EXAMPLE 32 [FIGURE 5A], Ld1 = 3.20 mm, Ld2 = 1.50 mm and Ld3 = 0.80 mm. Thus, Europe 231 discloses providing the FIGURE 5A pin such that “width W” = 3.20 mm. and “height H” = 1.50 mm [EXAMPLE 32]. As to planar sides, FIGURE 5A illustrates each of the six sides being planar. As to pneumatic tire, Europe 231 discloses a pneumatic tire (tire size 205/55R16) suitably used as a winter tire having a tread comprising the stud. Europe 231 teaches that the tire achieves good driving and braking performance on icy and snowy road surfaces as well as good stud off resistance. Europe 231 teaches that a tire comprising a stud having the FIGURE 5A pin has improved braking performance. Europe 231 does not recite “distance
Ld2 - distance Ld3” [distance between S(12) and S(45)] being in the range of 1.25 mm to 1.6 mm.
As to CLAIMS 1-3, 5-6, and 17-19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Europe 231’s tire stud having the FIGURE 5A pin such that “distance Ld2 - distance Ld3” [distance between S(12) and S(45)] is in the range of 1.25 mm to 1.6 mm [claim 1] and 90o < a2 < 170o [claim 1], 95o < a2 < 165o [claim 6] since (1) Europe 231 teaches providing a stud having a pin for a tire tread such that 1.0 < Ld1/Ld2 < 3.0 and 0.1 < Ld3/Ld1 < 0.4 for the pin of the stud [paragraphs 26-30], (2) Europe 231 discloses EXAMPLE 32 [FIGURE 5A], in which for the pin of the FIGURE 5A stud, Ld1 = 3.20 mm, Ld2 = 1.50 mm and Ld3 = 0.80 mm and (3) Korea 809 teaches providing a tire having a tread comprising a stud having a pin such that diameter “a” of the pin for the stud is 1 mm to 4 mm [FIGURES 1-2, machine translation].
As to CLAIMS 1-3, 5-6 and 17-19, the following additional comments are provided:
As to CLAIM 1: FOR EXAMPLE: When Ld1 = 3.20 mm [EXAMPLE 32], Ld1 = 1.7 Ld2 [1.7 falling within Europe 231’s disclosed range of 1.0 to 3.0] and Ld3 = 0.1 Ld1 [0.1 falling within Europe 231’s disclosed range of 0.1 to 0.4], then Ld2 - Ld3 = 1.56 mm as demonstrated below:
Ld1 = 3.20 mm
Ld1 = 1.7 Ld2
3.20 mm = 1.7 Ld2
Ld2 = 1.88 mm
Ld1 = 3.20 mm
Ld3 = 0.1 Ld1
Ld3 = 0.1 x 3.20 mm
Ld3 = 0.32 mm
Ld2 = 1.88 mm
Ld3 = 0.32 mm
Ld2 - Ld3 = 1.88 mm - 0.32 mm
Ld2 - Ld3 = 1.56 mm
This value of 1.56 mm for Ld2 - Ld3 [distance between S(12) and S(45)] falls within the claimed range of 1.25 to 1.6 mm. The use of Ld2 = 3.20 mm and Ld1 = 1.56 mm for dimensions of the pin for the stud is consistent with Korea 809’s teaching that dimension (diameter) of the pin for a stud may range from 1 mm to 4 mm. Thus, Europe 231’s teachings to provide a stud pin with dimensions Ld1, Ld2 and Ld3 such that Ld1 = 1.0 to 3.0 times Ld2 and Ld3 = 0.1 to 0.4 times Ld1, Europe 231’s disclosure of Ld1 = 3.20 mm in EXAMPLE #32 and optional Korea 809’s teaching that dimension of a stud pin may range from 1 mm to 4 mm renders obvious the claimed distance being 1.25 mm to 1.6 mm [CLAIM 1].
As to CLAIMS 1 and 6: When Ld1 = 3.20 mm, Ld2 = 1.56 mm and Ld3 = 0.32 mm, then angle a2 falls within the claimed range of greater than 90 degrees and less than 170 degrees [claim 1] and angle α2 falls within the claimed range of greater than 95 degrees and less than 165 degrees [claim 6].
As to CLAIM 2: Ld1 = 3.20 mm = width W. This value of 3.20 mm falls within the claimed range of 2.2 to 3.8 mm.
As to CLAIM 3: Europe 321’s FIGURE 5A stud pin has six planar sides.
As to CLAIM 5: Ld2 = 1.56 mm = height H. This value of 1.56 mm falls within the claimed range of 1.5 to 1.9 mm.
As to CLAIMS 17-19: As to pneumatic tire, Europe 231 discloses a pneumatic tire (tire size 205/55R16) suitably used as a winter tire having a tread comprising the stud.
As to CLAIMS 7 and 8, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Europe 231’s FIGURE 5A pin such that angle α1 < angle α2 [claim 7] and angle α1 > 75 degrees [claim 8] since FIGURE 5A of Europe 231 illustrates angle α1 being about 130 degrees and Europe 231 teaches 1.0 < Ld1/Ld2 < 3.0 and 0.1 < Ld3/Ld1 < 0.4. When distance Ld3 in FIGURE 5A decreases, then angle α2 forming the recess 2A increases such that angle α1 is less than angle α2.
5) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Europe 231 (EP 2,977,231) and optionally Korea 809 (KR 438809 Y1) as applied above and in view of Pons #1 (US 2012/0227880) and/or Pons #2 (US 2020/0189325).
As to CLAIM 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to chamfer one or more of the vertices of the polygon cross section of the FIGURE 5A pin of Europe 231’s stud since (1) Pons #1 shows chamfering vertices of a pin 20 of a stud for a tire [FIGURES 1-2] and/or (2) Pons #2 teaches chamfering edges 162 of a pin 52 of a stud for a tire for enhancing engagement with ice surface [FIGURES 1-5, paragraph 60].
6) Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Europe 231 (EP 2,977,231) and optionally Korea 809 (KR 438809 Y1) as applied above and in view of Russia 269 (RU 2292269).
As to CLAIMS 14 and 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Europe 231’s stud for a tire such that the pin comprises tungsten carbide [claim 14] and the body comprises metal [claim 15] since Russia 269 teaches providing a stud for a tire comprising a pin and a body such that the pin comprises tungsten carbide (WC) and the body comprises metal (e.g. steel) [FIGURES 1-2, machine translation].
7) Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Europe 231 (EP 2,977,231) and optionally Korea 809 (KR 438809 Y1) as applied above and in view of Georges et al (US 2021/0008930).
As to CLAIMS 14 and 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Europe 231’s stud for a tire such that the pin comprises tungsten carbide [claim 14] and the body comprises polymer [claim 16] since Georges et al teaches providing a stud for a tire comprising a pin and a body such that the pin comprises tungsten carbide and the body comprises polymer (e.g. polyethylene or polycarbonate) [FIGURES 1-6, paragraphs 10, 24, 26].
Remarks
8) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 14-19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
Claims 9-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species #2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12-4-25.
9) No claim is allowed.
10) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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 (Whatley) 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
March 23, 2026