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) 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.
2) The substitute specification filed 8-1-24 has been approved for entry by the examiner.
The drawing correction filed 8-1-24 has been approved for entry by the examiner.
3) 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.
4) Claims 2 and 11-18 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.
In claim 2, the description at lines 6-7 is confusing and ambiguous. In claim 2 lines 6-7, it is suggested to change “the groove wall angle on the inner side and the groove wall angle on the vehicle outer side smaller than the groove wall angle on the vehicle inner side” (emphasis added) to --the groove wall angle on the inner side smaller than the groove wall angle on the vehicle outer side--.
5) 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.
6) Claims 1-5 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura (US 2021/0347212) in view of Japan 144 (JP 2019-182144) and German 546 (DE 102014214546) and optionally Mizushima (US 2018/0339556).
Uemura discloses a pneumatic tore (tire size 245/40R19) having a tread comprising five land portions (center land portion, middle land portions, shoulder land portion) separated by circumferential grooves wherein each land portion is a rib [FIGURE 1]. Uemura discloses a rib comprising one end open lateral grooves 11 each having a bent portion, sipes 12, 14 and 16 and chamfers 13, 15 [FIGURE 2, 4A-4D]. Sipe 12 has a chamfer 13 on only one side [FIGURE 2]. Sipe 14 has a chamfer 15 on only one side [FIGURE 2]. Sipes 16 are not chamfered [FIGURE 2]. Lateral grooves 11, sipes 12, 14, 16 and chamfers 13, 15 may be provided in middle ribs of the tread [paragraph 40]. The claimed intermediate lug grooves read on lateral grooves 11. The claimed first and second sipes read on sipes 12 and 14 respectively. The claimed chamfered portions of the first and second sipes reads on chamfers 13 and 15 respectively. In claim 1, “specified mounting direction” relates to intended use and fails to require structure not disclosed by Uemura. Uemura substantially discloses the claimed invention except for the shoulder lug grooves and groove wall angles.
As to claims 1 and 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Uemura’s pneumatic tire such that
the pair of shoulder land portions each comprising a plurality of shoulder lug grooves extending in a tire width direction, and shoulder lug grooves that are formed in at least one shoulder land portion of the pair of shoulder land portions communicating with a main groove adjacent to the shoulder land portion
[claim 1],
shoulder lug grooves formed in a shoulder land portion located on the vehicle inner side of the pair of shoulder land portions open to a main groove adjacent to the shoulder land portion, and shoulder lug grooves formed in a shoulder land portion located on the vehicle outer side of the pair of shoulder land portions do not communicate with a main groove adjacent to the shoulder land portion
[claim 3]
since:
(1) Japan 144 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (tire size 205/55R16) having a tread comprising five land portions separated by circumferential grooves such that the OUTSIDE SHOULDER LAND PORTION comprises shoulder lug grooves each having one end open to a tread end and the other end terminating in the OUTSIDE SHOULDER LAND PORTION to increase rigidity and improve steering stability performance and the INSIDE SHOULDER LAND PORTIONS comprises shoulder lug grooves having one end open to a tread end and the other end open to a shoulder circumferential groove to increase drainage performance and ensure wet performance [FIGURES 1-2, machine translation].
and optionally
(2) Mizushima teaches providing a pneumatic tire (tire size 205/60R16) having a tread comprising five land portions separated by circumferential grooves such that each SHOULDER LAND PORTION comprises shoulder lug grooves having one end open to tread end and the other end terminating in the shoulder land portion wherein the middle land portions, like the middle land portions of Uemura, are ribs comprising one end lateral grooves and sipes [FIGURE 2].
As to claims 1 and 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Uemura’s pneumatic tire such that
at least one main groove of the plurality of main grooves has a groove wall angle on a vehicle inner side set to be smaller than a groove wall angle on a vehicle outer side [claim 1]
of the plurality of main grooves, a main groove located on a vehicle innermost side has the groove wall angle on the vehicle inner side and the groove wall angle on the outer side equal to each other, and main grooves other than the main groove located on the vehicle innermost side have groove wall angle on the vehicle inner side smaller than the groove wall angle on the vehicle outer side [claim 2]
since German 546 teaches providing a pneumatic passenger tire having five land portions separated by four circumferential grooves each having an outside wall inclined at angle β and an inside wall at angle α such that:
α4 = 3-7 degrees (e.g. 5 degrees) [inner most circumferential groove],
β4 = 1-5 degrees (e.g. 3 degrees) [inner most circumferential groove],
α3 = 8-12 degrees (e.g. 10 degrees),
β3 = 1-5 degrees (e.g. 3 degrees),
α2 = 13-17 degrees (e.g. 15 degrees),
β2 = 1-5 degrees (e.g. 3 degrees),
α1 = 18-25 degrees (e.g. 20 degrees) [outside most circumferential groove],
β1 = 1-5 degrees (e.g. 3 degrees) [outside most circumferential groove]
to improve dry handing property and improve aquaplaning behavior [FIGURE 2, machine translation]. As to claim 1, German 540 teaches angle β is less than angle α. As to claim 2, the inner most circumferential groove may have angle α4 = 5 degrees and angle β4 = 5 degrees since German 540 teaches α4 = 3-7 degrees (e.g. 5 degrees) and β4 = 1-5 degrees [machine translation].
As to claim 4, note concave curved chamfer in FIGURE 4A of Uemura.
As to claim 5, note sipes 16 of Uemura.
As to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Uemura’s pneumatic tire such that the shoulder land portions comprise a plurality of shoulder sipes extending in a zigzag manner in the tire width direction and a plurality of longitudinal sipes extending from the shoulder sipes in the tire circumferential direction since (1) Japan 144 teaches providing a pneumatic tire such that the narrow circumferential groove in the shoulder land portion with a width = 1.5 mm to 3 mm [FIGURE 2, machine translation]; 1.5 mm being a sipe width and (2) Mizushima teaches providing a pneumatic tire such that a shoulder land portion comprises zigzag sipes 43 and a zigzag narrow circumferential groove 53 having a width = 1 mm to 25 mm to reduce noise [paragraph 6]; 1.5 mm falling within this range of 1 mm to 25 mm. Thus, Japan 144 and Mizushima render obvious a zigzag narrow circumferential groove having a width = 1.5 mm (sipe width); such a zigzag narrow circumferential groove constituting a longitudinal sipe.
As to claim 10, note Uemura’s intermediate lug groove 11 having a bent shape shown in FIGURE 2.
As to claims 11-13, see comments for claims 3-5.
7) Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura (US 2021/0347212) in view of Japan 144 (JP 2019-182144) and German 546 (DE 102014214546) and optionally Mizushima (US 2018/0339556) as applied above and further in view of Japan 770 (JP 2006-224770).
As to claims 6 and 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Uemura’s pneumatic tire such that the intermediate land portions comprise a plurality of longitudinal sipes extending in the tire circumferential direction since Japan 770 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (tire size 175/65R14) having a tread comprising five land portions separated by circumferential grooves such that middle land portions, which comprise one end open lateral grooves, also comprise longitudinal sipes 5A, 5B to improve edge effect and skid resistance (turning performance on wet / snow road) [FIGURE 1, machine translation].
8) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura (US 2021/0347212) in view of Japan 144 (JP 2019-182144) and German 546 (DE 102014214546) and optionally Mizushima (US 2018/0339556) as applied above and further in view of Piffard (US 2013/0153100) and Baumhofer et al (US 5,240,053).
As to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Uemura’s pneumatic tire such that the center land portion comprises a circumferential narrow groove extending in the tire circumferential direction, a plurality of center lug grooves having one end portion opening to a main groove adjacent to the center land portion and the other end portion terminating within the center land portion, and a plurality of center sipes having one end portion opening to the main groove adjacent to the center land portion and the other end portion terminating within the center land portion, inclination angles with respect to the tire circumferential direction at opening ends of the center lug groove and the center sipe range from 50° to 80°, lengths in the tire width direction of the center lug groove and the center sipe are 40% to 80% of a distance from the main groove to the circumferential narrow groove, and a mutual interval between the center lug groove and the center sipe in the tire circumferential direction ranges from 5 mm to 20 mm since (1) Piffard teaches providing a passenger tire having a tread comprising five land portions separated by circumferential grooves such that the center land portion comprises a center narrow circumferential groove, short one end open lateral grooves (pitches 25 mm, 30 mm,35 mm) and short one end open sipes [FIGURE 6] and (2) Baumhofer et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising five land portions separated by circumferential grooves such that the center land portion comprises a center narrow circumferential groove and short one end open lateral grooves to obtain excellent performance on wet roads and low noise emission [FIGURE 1].
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
9) Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claims 7 and 15, the prior art fails to render obvious a tire having a tread wherein the intermediate land portions comprise a plurality of third sipes extending on
respective extension lines of the first sipe and the second sipe and having no chamfered portion and a plurality of longitudinal sipes extending in the tire circumferential direction, the intermediate lug grooves have a bent shape and comprise a first groove portion from an opening end to a bend point and a second groove portion from the bend point to a terminating end, and the plurality of longitudinal sipes branch from the third sipes and the intermediate lug grooves, the longitudinal sipes branching from the third sipes extend in the tire circumferential direction from a position corresponding to 20% to 80% of a length of the third sipes from an opening end of the third sipes to the main groove and terminate within the intermediate land portions, and the longitudinal sipes branching from the intermediate lug grooves extend in the tire circumferential direction from a position within 5 mm from a bent corner portion of the intermediate lug grooves and terminate within the intermediate land portions [claims 7, 15] IN COMBINATION WITH the remaining subject matter of claim 1.
Remarks
10) The remaining references are of interest.
11) 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 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights