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 § 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, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2018-103849, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki discloses a pneumatic tire, comprising:
a pair of beads that each have a bead core (see tire 1, Fig. 1, [0027]; beads with bead cores 4a);
a pair of sidewalls that respectively extend outward in a tire radial direction from the pair of beads (see sidewall 20); and
a tread that is disposed between the pair of sidewalls (tread 2),
wherein each sidewall is provided with a mark display section that includes a protruding section that protrudes outward in a tire axial direction from a profile line of the sidewall in a cross-sectional view of a tire meridian plane (see emblem display portion 2),
the mark display section includes:
cover rubber (thin cover rubber 21d), and
colored rubber having a surface a portion of which is covered by the cover rubber and a remainder of which is exposed (see white rubber 22, exposed at border portion 12a, Fig. 1),
the mark display section has a recess in a cross-sectional view of the tire meridian plane (see inner portion 12b, [0026]), and
a recess bottom of the recess is disposed outward in the tire axial direction from the profile line of the sidewall (see Fig. 1).
The mark display inherently has an outline area and a minimum quadrilateral area of a quadrilateral that circumscribes the outline of the mark display section. Sasaki does not expressly disclose the ratio of display section area to minimum quadrilateral area. Examiner notes that Sasaki and the instant application both disclose the marking as including an alphabetic character "O" (see below; appears to be part of the TOYO manufacturer logo, which is the common applicant between Sasaki and instant application).
Sasaki (the "O" from Fig. 2)
Instant application (Fig. 7B)
PNG
media_image1.png
134
208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
442
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Given that the "O" in Sasaki and the "O" in the instant application have a substantially identical shape, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect the ratio of outline area of the "O" in Sasaki to a minimum quadrilateral area to be substantially identical to the "O" marking in the instant application. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the alphabetic character "O" generally has a circular or elliptical outline shape. The area of a circle is πr2 and the area of an ellipse is πab (where a and b are minor and major radius) whereas the area of a corresponding minimum quadrilateral would be 4r2 and 4ab. The ratio of circle area/square area or ellipse area/quadrilateral area is π/4, which is about 79%.
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 area ratio as greater than or equal to 70% and less than or equal to 85% since (1) Sasaki discloses an "O" character marking having substantially identical shape as that of the instant application (see Fig. 2 of Sasaki, Fig. 7B of instant application) and thus one would expect a substantially identical area ratio; (2) the outline of a circular or elliptical "O" has an area ratio of about 79%, which falls within the claimed range (detailed above); and (3) Sasaki discloses the markings as display portions where different letters can be provided ([0026]) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to adjust the shape and size of the lettering based on aesthetic design choice to achieve a desired marking design.
Regarding claim 19 and 20, the recessed portion 12b in the "T" reads on a groove and a depression surrounded by protruding sections (12a).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2018-103849, with English machine translation) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Motogami (JP2012-131283, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki does not expressly disclose the thickness of the cover layer; 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 thickness as 0.08 to 0.20 mm since Motogami, similarly directed towards a tire having sidewall marking, teaches the marking as having a black cover layer 12 that covers a portion of a colored rubber layer and Motogami discloses that the thickness of the cover layer is not particularly limited but is usually formed to be about 0.5 mm or less ([0017]), said range overlapping the claimed range. One would have been motivated to select a cover layer thickness known to be suitable for covering a colored rubber layer on a tire sidewall.
Claims 5, 9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2018-103849, with English machine translation) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Matsunaga (JP10-067208, with English machine translation).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Sasaki illustrates the recess depth as smaller than the mark height but does not expressly give a numerical range. 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 recess with depth of less than or equal to 80% and greater than or equal to 50% of the protrusion height since Matsunaga, similarly directed towards a tire having protruding marks, teaches configuring the marks with a recess portion 3 having height that is 10 to 70% of the height T of the protruding mark (thus, depth T-t is 30 to 90%) to ensure sufficient rubber flow in the vicinity of the mark at the time of tire vulcanization, thereby preventing defects ([0006,0014,0015]).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Sasaki does not expressly disclose the tire as having a cross-sectional height of less than or equal to 155 mm or 130 mm; 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 a sectional height of 155 or less or 130 or less since it is well known and conventional in the tire art for tires to come in a wide variety of sizes with the recited heights covering conventional tire sizes--e.g., Matsunaga discloses an example tire having a protruding mark as 185/70R14 ([0008]) which has a section height size of 130 mm-- and one would have been motivated to configure the tire with a range of sizes to enable its use in conventional vehicle applications (e.g., low profile tires or small vehicle tires).
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2018-103849, with English machine translation) in view of Motogami (JP2012-131283, with English machine translation) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Matsunaga (JP10-067208, with English machine translation).
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Sasaki illustrates the recess depth as smaller than the mark height but does not expressly give a numerical range. 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 recess with depth of less than or equal to 80% and greater than or equal to 50% of the protrusion height since Matsunaga, similarly directed towards a tire having protruding marks, teaches configuring the marks with a recess portion 3 having height that is 10 to 70% of the height T of the protruding mark (thus, depth T-t is 30 to 90%) to ensure sufficient rubber flow in the vicinity of the mark at the time of tire vulcanization, thereby preventing defects ([0006,0014,0015]).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2018-103849, with English machine translation) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Yamashita (US 5263525).
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki does not expressly disclose the protrusion height as 1 to 3 mm; 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 protrusion with height of 1 to 3 mm since Yamashita, similarly directed towards a tire sidewall marking, teaches configuring the height h of the protruding mark as preferably less than 5 mm to provide visibility and prevent cracks from bending deformation (col 3, lines 18-32), said range overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 16, Sasaki does not expressly disclose the radial length of the mark display section as 15 to 25 mm; 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 radial length as claimed since Yamashita, similarly directed towards a tire sidewall marking, teaches configuring the radial length (height H) of the protruding mark as 15 to 60 mm to provide visibility and prevent cracks from bending deformation (col 3, lines 18-32), said range overlapping the claimed range.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2018-103849, with English machine translation) in view of Motogami (JP2012-131283, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yamashita (US 5263525).
Regarding claim 15, Sasaki does not expressly disclose the protrusion height as 1 to 3 mm; 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 protrusion with height of 1 to 3 mm since Yamashita, similarly directed towards a tire sidewall marking, teaches configuring the height h of the protruding mark as preferably less than 5 mm to provide visibility and prevent cracks from bending deformation (col 3, lines 18-32), said range overlapping the claimed range.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2018-103849, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamura (JP 2008-195136, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, Sasaki does not expressly disclose the recess depth as 50-80% of the protrusion height or the protrusion height as 1.5 to 3.0 mm; 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 recess depth and protrusion height as claimed since Tamura, similarly directed towards a tire sidewall marking, teaches markings having raised outer contour portions and a recessed central portion wherein the height of the central portion is 0.4 to 0.7 times the height of the contour portion to ensure rubber flow and prevent vulcanization failure and defects ([0017]; depth is thus 0.3 to 0.6 of height) and Tamura teaches configuring the height of the outer contour as 0.5 to 3.0 mm depending on the size and type of the tire and to promote visibility ([0018, 0002]); said ranges overlapping the claimed ranges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sasaki fail to teach or suggest the ratio of mark display section area (D) to minimum quadrilateral area (E) as 70% to 85%. Applicant also argued that the references fail to teach or suggest the combination of limitations in claim 21.
As to the area ratio, Examiner notes that Sasaki and the instant application both disclose the marking as including an alphabetic character "O" (see below; appears to be part of the TOYO manufacturer logo, which is the common applicant between Sasaki and instant application).
Sasaki (the "O" from Fig. 2)
Instant application (Fig. 7B)
PNG
media_image1.png
134
208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
442
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Given that the "O" in Sasaki and the "O" in the instant application have a substantially identical shape, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect the ratio of outline area of the "O" in Sasaki to a minimum quadrilateral area to be substantially identical to the "O" marking in the instant application. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the alphabetic character "O" generally has a circular or elliptical outline shape. The area of a circle is πr2 and the area of an ellipse is πab (where a and b are minor and major radius) whereas the area of a corresponding minimum quadrilateral would be 4r2 and 4ab. The ratio of circle area/square area or ellipse area/quadrilateral area is π/4, which is about 79%.
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 area ratio as greater than or equal to 70% and less than or equal to 85% since (1) Sasaki discloses an "O" character marking having substantially identical shape as that of the instant application (see Fig. 2 of Sasaki, Fig. 7B of instant application) and thus one would expect a substantially identical area ratio; (2) the outline of a circular or elliptical "O" has an area ratio of about 79%, which falls within the claimed range (detailed above); and (3) Sasaki discloses the markings as display portions where different letters can be provided ([0026]) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to adjust the shape and size of the lettering based on aesthetic design choice to achieve a desired marking design.
As to claim 21, new grounds of rejection have been made to address the limitations.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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