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) In order to expedite prosecution, the replacement drawings filed 10-1-24
have been approved and accepted by the examiner. However, note the objection to FIGURE 4 of the replacement drawings in the next paragraph of this office action.
3) With respect to FIGURE 4C of the replacement drawings filed 10-1-24, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “490” and “486”. See FIGURE 4C.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
4) 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.
5) Claims 1-25 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 1, it is unclear if the second exterior blocks described at lines 6-7 are
the same block or different blocks. In claim 1, the following changes are suggested:
(1) on line 6 change “second exterior tire block” to --one second exterior tire block--,
(2) on line 7 change “second exterior tire block” to --another second exterior tire block--, (3) on line 9 change “the second exterior tire block” to --the one second exterior tire block--, (4) on line 10, change “the second exterior tire block” to --the one second exterior tire block--.
In claim 1 lines 12-18 (last seven lines), the description of the tie bars is ambiguous since this description contains numerous antecedent basis problems, describes “can range” and has both broad and narrow ranges for the same parameter. EXAMPLES: There is no antecedent basis for “the solid body tie bar”, “said tie bar groove configurations”, “the tie bar ridge” [which ridge?] and “the groove” ([which groove?]. It is unclear if the range described by “can range” is required or optional. It is unclear if width of “0.25 mm” or width of “0.15 mm to 0.35 mm” is required. In claim 1, it is suggested to change lines 12-18 (last seven lines) to the following: --the tie bar assembly comprising groove configuration tie bars and a solid body tie bar wherein the solid body tie bar is surrounded by the groove configuration tie bars, each groove configuration tie bar comprises ridges and grooves, each ridge of the groove configuration tie bar has a width between 0.15 mm to 0.35 mm and a depth of approximately 1 mm and each groove of the groove configuration tie bar has a width of 0.125 mm and a depth of approximately 1 mm--.
In claim 2, the use of parenthesis renders the scope of this claim unclear.
Also, the description of “the depth (length of tie bar between blocks)” is confusing and ambiguous. In claim 2, it is suggested to change “the depth (length of tie bar between blocks)” to --length of tie bar between blocks--.
In claim 3, the use of parenthesis renders the scope of this claim unclear. also, the description of “the width (cross section 90 degrees offset from length of tie bar between blocks)” is confusing and ambiguous. In claim 3, it is suggested to change “the width (cross section 90 degrees offset from length of tie bar between blocks)” to --the width of tie bar between blocks--.
In claim 5, it is unclear if “tie bars” on line 2 is describing previously mentioned tie bars or additional tie bars. In claim 5, it is suggested to change “a plurality of tie bars” to --a plurality of the tie bars--.
In claim 6, it is unclear if “tie bars” on line 2 is describing previously mentioned tie bars or additional tie bars. In claim 6, it is suggested to change “a plurality of tie bars” to --a plurality of the tie bars--.
In claim 7, the description of “can be” renders the scope of this claim unclear.
In claim 7, it is suggested to change “can be” to --is-.
In claim 8, the description of “can be” renders the scope of this claim unclear.
In claim 8, it is suggested to change “can be” to --is-.
In claim 9, the description of “can be” renders the scope of this claim unclear.
In claim 9, it is suggested to change “can be” to --is-.
In claim 10, it is unclear if the second exterior blocks described at lines 6-7 are the same block or different blocks. In claim 10, the following changes are suggested: (1) on line 6 change “second exterior tire block” to --one second exterior tire block--,
(2) on line 7 change “second exterior tire block” to --another second exterior tire block--, (3) on line 9 change “the second exterior tire block” to --the one second exterior tire block--, (4) on line 10, change “the second exterior tire block” to --the one second exterior tire block--.
In claim 11, the use of parenthesis renders the scope of this claim unclear.
Also, the description of “the depth (length of tie bar between blocks)” is confusing and ambiguous. In claim 11, it is suggested to change “the depth (length of tie bar between blocks)” to --length of tie bar between blocks--.
In claim 12, the use of parenthesis renders the scope of this claim unclear.
Also, the description of “the width (cross section 90 degrees offset from length of tie bar between blocks)” is confusing and ambiguous. In claim 12, it is suggested to change “the width (cross section 90 degrees offset from length of tie bar between blocks)” to
--the width of tie bar between blocks--.
In claim 14, it is unclear if “tie bars” on line 2 is describing previously mentioned tie bars or additional tie bars. In claim 14, it is suggested to change “a plurality of tie bars” to --a plurality of the tie bars--.
In claim 15, it is unclear if “tie bars” on line 2 is describing previously mentioned tie bars or additional tie bars. In claim 15, it is suggested to change “a plurality of tie bars” to --a plurality of the tie bars--.
In claim 18, it is unclear if the second exterior blocks described at lines 6 and 9 are the same block or different blocks. In claim 18, the following changes are suggested: (1) on line 6 change “second exterior tire block” to --one second exterior tire block--, (2) on line 7 change “second exterior tire block” to --another second exterior tire block--, (3) on line 12 change “the second exterior tire block” to --the one second exterior tire block--, (4) on line 14, change “the second exterior tire block” to --the one second exterior tire block--.
In claim 19, the use of parenthesis renders the scope of this claim unclear.
Also, the description of “the depth (length of tie bar between blocks)” is confusing and ambiguous. In claim 19, it is suggested to change “the depth (length of tie bar between blocks)” to --length of tie bar between blocks--.
In claim 20, the use of parenthesis renders the scope of this claim unclear.
Also, the description of “the width (cross section 90 degrees offset from length of tie bar between blocks)” is confusing and ambiguous. In claim 20, it is suggested to change “the width (cross section 90 degrees offset from length of tie bar between blocks)” to
--the width of tie bar between blocks--.
In claim 22, it is unclear if “tie bars” on line 2 is describing previously mentioned tie bars or additional tie bars. In claim 22, it is suggested to change “a plurality of tie bars” to --a plurality of the tie bars--.
In claim 23, it is unclear if “tie bars” on line 2 is describing previously mentioned tie bars or additional tie bars. In claim 23, it is suggested to change “a plurality of tie bars” to --a plurality of the tie bars--.
6) The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7) 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.
Fukata et al
8) Claims 10-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fukata et al (WO 95/18022).
Fukata et al discloses a vehicle tire having a tread comprising blocks separated by circumferential grooves 11 and lateral grooves 12 [FIGURES 1, 2A, 2B, 9]. The circumferential groove 11 has a wave bottom surface 11a having a wave configuration [FIGURES 1, 2A, 2B, 9]. The wave configuration may be a sinusoidal wave configuration having wave height h and wave length f [FIGURE 1, 2A, 3A] or a square wave configuration having wave height h and wave length f [FIGURE 3B]. The wave height h = 1 to 4 mm [page 13]. The wave length f = 1 to 150 mm [page 14]. The square wave configuration defines “tie bars” separated by “grooves”. Thus, Fukata et al teaches tie bars having a height h = 1 mm and a width = 0.5 mm [width = 50% wave length f [FIGURE 3B] → width = 0.50 x 1 mm → width = 0.5 mm]. An annotated partial copy of FIGURE 9 of Fukata et al is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
316
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, the markings were added by examiner to facilitate discussion of Fukata et al. In the MARKED UP FIGURE, I1 is a first interior tire block, I2 is a second interior tire block, E1 is a first exterior tire block, E2 is one second exterior tire block and E3 is another second exterior tire block. An annotated copy of FIGURE 1 of Fukata et al is provided below:
PNG
media_image2.png
582
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, the markings were added by examiner to facilitate discussion of Fukata et al. In the MARKED UP FIGURE, T1 is a first tie bar, T2 is a second tie bar, T3 is a third tie bar and T4 is a fourth tie bar. Thus, Fukata teaches coupling an exterior block and an interior block using tie bars. Fukata et al teaches an EXAMPLE in which the circumferential groove has a width = 4 mm and a depth = 6 mm [EXAMPLE 1, page 22]. Fukata et al teaches forming the tire including the wave bottom surface using a mold [page 15]. Fukata et al teaches that the wave bottom surface imparts flow of water with wave motion wherein impact of wave motion divides water into small lumps such that water is rapidly discharged out of the groove by wave motion and centrifugal force.
As to claim 10, the claimed tire is anticipated by Fukata et al’s tire. The claimed first and second exterior tire blocks read on exterior blocks E1, E2, E3 [MARKED UP FIGURE]. The claimed interior tire block reads on first interior tire block I1 [MARKED UP FIGURE] and the claimed interior reciprocal tire block reads on second interior tire block I2 [MARKED UP FIGURE]. It is noted that the description of “interior tire block” and “interior reciprocal tire block” fails to require these blocks to have different orientations and fails to require interior tire blocks different than Fukata et al’s interior tire blocks I1, I2 shown in FIGURE 9. The claimed tie bar assembly reads on the tie bars coupling an exterior block and an interior block of the tread of Fukata et al’s tire. IN ANY EVENT: As to claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a tire having the FIGURE 9 tread pattern of Fukata et al, which comprises exterior tire blocks E1, E2, E3 and interior tire blocks I1, I2, such that a tie bar assembly comprising tie bars couples the one exterior tire block E2 to the interior tire block I2 since (1) Fukata et al discloses a tire having a known tread pattern comprising exterior blocks, interior blocks, lateral grooves and circumferential grooves [FIGURE 9] and (2) Fukata et al teaches providing a circumferential groove between blocks with a wave bottom surface to improve discharge of water out of the groove wherein the wave bottom surface has a wave configuration, which may be a square wave configuration defining multiple tie bars having height h (e.g. 1 mm) and width f/2 (e.g. 0.5 mm); these tie bars coupling an exterior block to an interior block.
As to claim 11, Fukata et al teaches providing circumferential groove with width of 4 mm and extending the wave bottom surface, which defines tie bars, from one block to another block; the tie bars thereby having a length = 4 mm.
As to claim 12, Fukata et al teaches tie bar width = 0.5 mm.
As to claim 13, Fukata teaches tie bar height = 1 mm.
As to claim 16, one tie bar having a groove configuration reads on a combination of two or three of the tie bars defined by the wave bottom surface.
As to claim 17, one tie bar having a solid body configuration reads on one of the tie bars defined by the wave configuration.
Maxwell et al
9) Claims 10, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maxwell et al (US 2006/0016536).
Maxwell et al discloses a pneumatic tire comprising center block rows 12, 14 each comprising center blocks (interior blocks) and shoulder block rows 16, 18 each comprising shoulder blocks (exterior blocks). FIGURE 1 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image3.png
686
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Maxwell et al teaches coupling a shoulder block to a center block using second portions 44 (tie bars) of biting elements 40 [FIGURES 1-3]. Width of a biting element (tie bar) is less than or equal to 20% of length of a block. Height of a biting element (tie bar) is less than or equal to 20% of depth of a groove. FIGURE 2, which is a close up view of a section of the FIGURE 1 tread pattern is provided below.
PNG
media_image4.png
412
580
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from FIGURE 2, six biting elements (tie bars) couple a shoulder block and a center block (the center block having length L). The six tie bars comprise tie bars extending in three different directions. The biting elements (tie bars) improve traction characteristics.
As to claim 10, the claimed tire is anticipated by Maxwell et al’s tire having the tread pattern shown in FIGURES 1-3. The claimed exterior blocks read on the shoulder blocks of Maxwell et al’s tread pattern shown in FIGURES 1-3. The claimed interior blocks read on the center blocks of Maxwell et al’s tread pattern shown in FIGURES
1-3. The claimed tie bar assembly reads on a combination of the biting elements 40 (second portion 44 thereof).
As to claim 16, one tie bar having a groove configuration reads on a combination of two or three of the biting elements 40 (second portions 44 thereof).
As to claim 17, one tie bar having a solid body configuration reads on one of the biting elements 40 (second portion 44 thereof).
10) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell et al (US 2006/0016536) in view of Ikuno (US 2022/0097455).
As to claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Maxwell et al’s pneumatic tire such that length of tie bar between blocks of the tie bars is between 4 mm and 8 mm since (1) Maxwell et al teaches separating the shoulder blocks (exterior blocks) and center blocks (interior blocks) of the block tread pattern of the pneumatic tire using a circumferential groove and (2) Ikuno discloses a pneumatic tire having a block tread pattern comprising blocks separated by circumferential grooves and providing a circumferential groove with a width of at least 5 mm [paragraph 22]. When tie bars extending across the entire width of a circumferential groove (as per Maxwell et al) and width of circumferential groove is at least 5 mm (as per Ikuno), then the length of the tie bars is at least 5 mm.
11) Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell et al (US 2006/0016536) in view of Fukata et al (WO 95/18022) or Korea 320 (KR 2004-0005320).
As to claims 12 and 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Maxwell et al’s pneumatic tire such that the width of tie bar between blocks of the tie bars is between 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm [claim 12], the height of the tie bars is between 0.5 mm to 2 mm [claim 13] since (1) Fukata et al teaches providing tie bars in a circumferential groove of a tire such that each tie bar has a height h and a width f/2 wherein h = 1-4 mm and f = 1-150 mm; height = 1 mm and width = 0.5 mm thereby being described or (2) Korea 320 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising tie bars in a circumferential groove such that each tie bar has a height of 0.3 to 1.0 mm [FIGURES 2-3, machine translation] and a width less than the height [FIGURE 3].
12) Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell et al (US 2006/0016536).
As to claims 14 and 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Maxwell et al’s pneumatic tire such that a plurality of tie bars and the interior tire block define a first triangular strengthening feature having an acute angle α1 that is between 30 degrees and 50 degrees [claim 14], a plurality of tie bars and the interior tire block define a second triangular strengthening feature having an acute angle α2 that is between 30 degrees and 50 degrees [claim 15] since (1) Maxwell et al teaches inclining tie bars between a shoulder block (exterior block) and a center block (interior block) at different angles such that two tie bars and the center block (interior block) define an acute angle [FIGURES 2, 6].
13) Claims 18 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell et al (US 2006/0016536) in view of Schuster (WO 98/03357).
As to claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Maxwell et al’s pneumatic tire using a first mold since Schuster teaches making a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising blocks, lateral grooves and circumferential grooves having tie bars [FIGURES 8-10] using a mold [FIGURES 6-7].
As to claims 22-23, see above comments for claims 14-15.
As to claims 24-25, see above comments for claims 16-17.
14) Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell et al (US 2006/0016536) in view of Schuster (WO 98/03357) as applied above and further in view of Ikuno (US 2022/0097455).
As to claim 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Maxwell et al’s pneumatic tire such that length of tie bar between blocks of the tie bars is between 4 mm and 8 mm since (1) Maxwell et al teaches separating the shoulder blocks (exterior blocks) and center blocks (interior blocks) of the block tread pattern of the pneumatic tire using a circumferential groove and (2) Ikuno discloses a pneumatic tire having a block tread pattern comprising blocks separated by circumferential grooves and providing a circumferential groove with a width of at least 5 mm [paragraph 22]. When tie bars extending across the entire width of a circumferential groove (as per Maxwell et al) and width of circumferential groove is at least 5 mm (as per Ikuno), then the length of the tie bars is at least 5 mm.
15) Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell et al (US 2006/0016536) in view of Schuster (WO 98/03357) as applied above and further in view of Fukata et al (WO 95/18022) or Korea 320 (KR 2004-0005320).
As to claims 20 and 21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Maxwell et al’s pneumatic tire such that the width of tie bar between blocks of the tie bars is between 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm [claim 20], the height of the tie bars is between 0.5 mm to 2 mm [claim 21] since (1) Fukata et al teaches providing tie bars in a circumferential groove of a tire such that each tie bar has a height h and a width f/2 wherein h = 1-4 mm and f = 1-150 mm; height = 1 mm and width = 0.5 mm thereby being described or (2) Korea 320 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising tie bars in a circumferential groove such that each tie bar has a height of 0.3 to 1.0 mm [FIGURES 2-3, machine translation] and a width less than the height [FIGURE 3].
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
16) Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
As to claim 1, the prior art fails to render obvious a tire having a tire tread, blocks, grooves and tie bar assembly wherein the tie bar assembly comprises tie bars as specifically described in the last seven lines of claim 1.
Remarks
17) Li et al (US D1,040,732) is cited of interest for showing tie bars between blocks in a tire tread pattern [FIGURES 1.5, 1.6, title].
Maxwell (US 6,250,353) is cited of interest for disclosing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising shoulder blocks and oppositely oriented V-shaped center blocks [FIGURE 5].
Hawkinson (US D222,899) is cited of interest for showing a tire tread comprising shoulder blocks and oppositely oriented V-shaped center blocks [FIGURE 2].
The remaining references are of interest.
18) 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
May 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights