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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4-27-26 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.
Buchinger-Barnstorf et al
4) Claims 12-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchinger-Barnstorf et al (US 2012/0267020) in view of Cerny et al (US 2019/0184760) and/or DeBarsy (US 2009/0095387) and further in view of Li (US 2018/0236821).
Cerny et al and/or DeBarsy render obvious adding sipes to Buchinger-Barnstorf et al’s pneumatic tire having a tread comprising circumferential grooves such that the sipes have a depth greater than the depth of the circumferential grooves.
Li render obvious providing a well at each end of each sipe.
Buchinger-Barnstorf et al, directed to a tire tread having re-cuttable grooves, discloses a pneumatic tire for utility vehicle (truck tire) having a size such as 11.00R22 or 12.00R24 comprising a tread, belt package (crown reinforcement) and carcass [FIGURE 1, paragraphs 6-7]. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that this tire comprises two beads and two sidewall portions. The tread comprises rubber (elastomer compound) [paragraphs 13, 32]. The tread comprises at least two circumferential grooves 3 separating land portions (circumferential ribs 2) [FIGURE 1]. The tread comprises a profiled region 6 and a trimming margin 7 (re-cuttable region). Buchinger-Barnstorf et al discloses
[0002] In particular truck tires are known which can be trimmed by the arrangement of a trimming margin in order to increase the kilometrage of the tire. The trimming margin is a rubber layer which adjoins the profiled region radially on the inside and into which the profile geometry of the largely worn away profiled region can be subsequently cut. The trimming makes available an additional profile depth and the kilometrage of the tire is increased.
[0003] The profiled region has a radial thickness (a) and at least two circumferential grooves, running in the circumferential direction, of a certain radial depth, which circumferential grooves divide the profiled region into circumferential ribs, wherein a first envelope (h1) which runs in the tread, parallel to the tread periphery, and which is in contact with the deepest circumferential groove or grooves radially from the inside, defines the profiled region together with the tread periphery and the shoulder-side edge sections, and wherein all the grooves define a certain groove volume in the profiled region. The trimming margin has a radial thickness (b), and wherein an envelope (h2), which runs in the tread, parallel to the tread periphery, and is in contact with the most deeply trimmable circumferential groove or grooves radially from the inside, defines the trimming margin together with the first envelope (h1) and the shoulder-side edge sections.
[0021] It is advantageous for the tread to have at least one trimming indicator which is arranged in a circumferential groove and/or in a lateral groove. The trimming indicator indicates the maximum recommended trimming depth. The trimming indicator is, for example, a radially extending recess whose base extends as far as the radial depth which corresponds to the trimming recommendation. The trimming indicator may be arranged, for example, in a punctiform fashion or running around the circumference of the tire. The trimming indicator does not contribute to the groove volume.
[0022] Treads according to the invention may have in the circumferential ribs lateral grooves, recesses and the like whose "air volume" contributes to the groove volume.
[paragraphs 2, 3, 21, emphasis added]. An annotated partial copy of FIGURE 1 is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
406
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MARKED UP FIGURE #21
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE #2 the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate visual inspection of FIGURE 1 of Buchinger-Barnstorf et al. In MARKED UP FIGURE #2, reference characters 1-8 are the same, “A” is indicated instead of “a”, “B” is indicated instead of “b”, “H1” is indicated instead of “h1” and “H2” is indicated instead of “h2”. Also, the leader lines for the reference characters were redrawn and the lines for H1 (h1) and H2 (h2) were redrawn to make these lines more visible.
Buchinger-Barnstorf et al discloses that the tread comprises a profiled region 6 defining an envelope H1 and having a thickness / depth A between the tread surface and envelope H1 and a trimming margin 7 (re-cuttable region) defining an envelope H2 and having a thickness / depth B between the envelope H1 and the envelope H2. Buchinger-Barnstorf et al discloses forming circumferential grooves 3 in the profiled region 6 such that the circumferential grooves 3 have a depth A (A = new groove depth = thickness / depth of profiled region 6). Buchinger-Barnstorf et al teaches that, after the tire is worn, the tread may be cut (“re-cut” / “re-grooved”) to a trimming depth B to provide additional profile depth to increase kilometrage of the tire such that the bottom of the re-cut grooves is extended to and coincides with the envelope H2. [paragraphs 2-3, 12, 15-17, 21, 26, TABLE]. Buchinger-Barnstorf et al teaches:
new groove depth A = 6 to 25 mm,
trimming depth B > 40% new groove depth A and B > 5 mm,
trimming depth B > 60% new groove depth A and B > 5 mm,
trimming depth B > 100% new groove depth A and B > 5 mm,
trimming depth B > 150% new groove depth A and B > 5 mm,
See paragraphs 12, 15-18, 27, claims 1, 6-9. Buchinger-Barnstorf et al teaches that the rigidity of the profile in the radial direction is increased in such a way that the deformation amplitude of the tread is reduced so that the rolling resistance of the tire is smaller [paragraphs 13, 32]. Buchinger-Barnstorf et al teaches that the tread comprises at least two circumferential grooves and may comprise lateral grooves [paragraphs 3, 22, claims 1, 12]. Buchinger-Barnstorf et al teaches providing the tread with at least one trimming indicator (radially extending recess) arranged in a circumferential groove and/or in a lateral groove; the base of the recess extending as far as the radial depth which corresponds to the trimming recommendation (i.e. depth of trimming indicator recess = trimming depth B) [paragraph 21]. Thus, Buchinger-Barnstorf et al teaches trimming (re-cutting) circumferential grooves and/or lateral grooves (circumferential grooves and/or lateral grooves may be “re-cuttable grooves”). An annotated copy of a portion of FIGURE 1 of Buchinger - Barnstorf et al is provided below:
PNG
media_image2.png
506
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MARKED UP FIGURE #3
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE #3, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Buchinger - Barnstorf et al. In MARKED UP FIGURE #3:
depth HN = depth of circumferential groove when the tire is new which equals depth of thickness A of profiled region 6,
depth X = depth between bottom of circumferential groove when tire is new and bottom of trimming margin 7, which equals thickness B of trimming margin 7,
depth Y = depth between tread surface when tire is new and bottom of trimming margin 7.
Since (i) Buchinger-Barnstorf et al teaches the trimming margin (re-cuttable region) is a rubber layer into which the profile geometry of the largely worn away profiled region can be subsequently cut [paragraph 2], (ii) the trimming margin (re-cuttable region) defines an envelope H2 which is in contact with the most deeply trimmable (re-cuttable) grooves, and (iii) the tread is provided with at least one trimming indicator (radially extending recess) arranged in a circumferential groove and/or in a lateral groove such that the base of the recess extends as far as the radial depth which corresponds to the trimming recommendation [paragraphs 21], one of ordinary skill in the art would have no difficulty understanding that a groove in the tire tread can be regrooved such that the bottom of the regrooved groove coincides with the bottom (envelope H2) of the trimming margin 7 (re-cuttable region). In Trial 6, Buchinger - Barnstorf et al discloses thickness A of profiled region is 6 mm and thickness B of trimming margin is 13 mm. Therefore, Buchinger - Barnstorf et al discloses the information in the following TABLE:
Trial 6 of Buchinger - Barnstorf et al
thickness A = 6 mm
thickness B = 13 mm
A+ B = 6 mm + 13 mm
depth HN = 6 mm
depth X = 13 mm
Y = 19 mm
height HN3 = 6 mm [thickness A = depth HN = height HN3]
height HR = 217% height HN3 [13 mm/6 mm x 100% = 217%]
when tire is regrooved after 6 mm of tread wear
height HR > 217% height HN3 when tire is regrooved after less than 6 mm tread wear
height HR = 316% height HN3 [19 mm/6 mm x 100% = 316%]
when tire is regrooved when tire is new
In claim 12, the claimed height HN3 reads on depth HN = 6 mm as disclosed by Buchinger - Barnstorf et al. With respect to height HR (depth of re-cut groove after regrooving operation), it is noted that height HR = depth X if Buchinger-Barnstorf et al’s tread is re-cut (re-grooved) when the tread wears down to the bottom of a circumferential groove (i.e. the tread has worn 6 mm). Thus, HR = 217% HN3 when
the tread wears down to the bottom of a circumferential groove (i.e. the tread has worn 6 mm) [13 mm/6 mm x 100% = 217%]. This value of 217% falls within the range of greater than or equal to 70% in claim 12. If a circumferential groove in Buchinger-Barnstorf et al’s tread is re-cut (re-grooved) before the tread wears down to the bottom of the circumferential groove (i.e. tread wear is less than 6 mm), then HR > 217% HN3. Thus, HR > 217% HN3 when the tread is re-cut (re-grooved) before the tread wears down to the bottom of the circumferential groove (i.e. the tread wears less than 6 mm). The range of greater than 217% falls within the range of greater than or equal to 70% in claim 12. It is noted that height HR = depth Y if a circumferential groove in Buchinger-Barnstorf et al’s tread is re-cut (re-grooved) when the tire is new. Thus, HR = 316% HN3 when the tread is re-cut (re-grooved) when the tire is new [19mm/6mm x 100% = 316%]. This value of 316% falls within the range of greater than or equal to 70% in claim 12. Also, the value 316% fall within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 200% in claim 15. As to claims 13-15, “a height corresponding to a distance between the tread surface when new and a bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove after a previous regrooving operation” equals distance Y if the tire is re-grooved such that a bottom of the re-cut groove coincides with envelope H2 and is less than distance Y if a bottom of the re-cut groove is above envelope H2. Buchinger - Barnstorf et al does not recite providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising sipes having a depth Hi.
As to claims 12-15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising elastomer compound such that
the tread has at least one re-cuttable groove forming at least one tread pattern element making up a tread pattern of the tire, exhibiting a height HN3 between a bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove and a tread surface when the tire is new, and at least one sipe, flush with the tread surface when the tire is new, exhibiting a height Hi between a bottom of the at least one sipe and the tread surface when the tire is new, wherein the height Hi of the at least one sipe of the tire when new is greater than the height HN3 of the at least one re-cuttable groove of the tire when new, and wherein, after a regrooving operation, a height HR of at least one re-cut groove is greater than or equal to 70% of the height HN3 of the at least one re-cuttable groove of the tire when new (height HR > 70% height HN3 and height Hi > height HN3) [claim 12],
height Hi of the at least one sipe of the tire when new is greater than 90% of a height corresponding to a distance (“distance Y”) between the tread surface when new and a bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove after a previous regrooving operation (height Hi > 90% distance Y) [claim 13],
height Hi of the at least one sipe of the tire when new is equal to a height corresponding to a distance (“distance Y”) between the tread surface when new and a bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove after a previous regrooving operation (height Hi = 100% distance Y) [claim 14],
a height corresponding to a distance (“distance Y”) between the tread surface when new and the bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove after a previous regrooving operation is greater than or equal to 200% of the height HN3 between a bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove and the tread surface when the tire is new (distance Y > 200% height HN3) [claim 15]
since:
(1) Buchinger-Barnstorf et al teaches a PNEUMATIC TIRE for utility vehicle (e.g. truck) having a RUBBER TREAD comprising a profiled region 6 defining an envelope H1 and having a thickness / depth A between the tread surface and envelope H1 and a trimming margin 7 (re-cuttable region) defining an envelope H2 and having a thickness / depth B between the envelope H1 and the envelope H2,
(2) Buchinger-Barnstorf et al discloses forming circumferential grooves 3 in the profiled region 6 such that the circumferential grooves 3 have a depth A (A = new groove depth = thickness / depth of profiled region 6),
(3) Buchinger-Barnstorf et al teaches that, after the tire is worn, grooves in the tread may be cut (“re-cut” / “re-grooved”) to a trimming depth B to provide additional profile depth to increase kilometrage of the tire such that the bottom of the re-cut grooves is extended to and coincides with the envelope H2 wherein Buchinger-Barnstorf et al discloses an EXAMPLE (Trial 6) in which thickness / depth A = 6 mm and thickness / depth B = 13 mm (height HR > 217% height HN3, depth Y (“distance”) = 316% height HN3), and
(4) (A) Cerny et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire for trucks having a tread comprising tread elements separated by circumferential grooves such that land portions comprise both end open sipes having edges at the tread surface for improving traction wherein the sipes have a depth greater than or equal to 100% (e.g. about 101% to about 110%) of the height of tread elements defined by grooves [FIGURES 1-2, paragraphs 2, 28, 31, 38-39, 53] and/or (B) De Barsy teaches providing a pneumatic tire for heavy vehicles having a tread comprising land portions separated by circumferential grooves having full depth “GD” such that land portions are provided with both end open sipes 22 forming additional edges that significantly to the tire’s traction performance in all road conditions wherein the sipes have a depth greater than or equal to groove “GD” (e.g. depth “Z” > depth “GD”) of the circumferential grooves so that the tire has improved traction through the full life of the tire [FIGURES 3-4, 7-8]. Thus, Cerny et al and/or DeBarsy motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Buchinger-Barnstorf et al’s pneumatic tire with sipes such that the sipes have a depth greater than the depth of the circumferential grooves when the tire is new. In other words, height Hi > height HN3 [claim 12: height Hi = sipe depth and height HN3 = depth of circumferential groove when the tire is new]. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate from Buchinger-Barnstorf et al and Cerny et al and/or DeBarsy that, when Buchinger-Barnstorf et al’s tire is provided with sipes having a depth of greater than groove depth of the circumferential grooves when the tire is new, additional traction provided by the sipes is maintained throughout life of the tire.
With respect to “well” [claim 12], Li discloses a pneumatic tire (heavy load tire size 295/80R22.5) having a tread comprising land portions (circumferential ribs) delimited by circumferential grooves such that a recessed portion 8a, 8b, 15a, 15b (well) is arranged at each end of sipes 6, 7 to prevent chipping at ends of the sipes [FIGURES 1-3, paragraphs 34,53]. Annotated copes of FIGURES 2 and 4A of Li are provided below:
PNG
media_image3.png
572
834
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURES #4 and #5, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Li. In the MARKED UP FIGURES #4 and #5,
“R” is a recessed portion. As can be seen from MARKED UP FIGURES #4 and #5,
each recessed portion R has a depth greater than depth D7 of sipe 7. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Thus, Li teaches positioning a recessed portion at each end of a sipe such that depth of the recessed portion (well) is at least equal to depth of the sipe to prevent chipping at the ends of the sipe.
With respect to each sipe end positioned at a well [claim 12], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Buchinger-Barnstorf et al’s pneumatic tire having sipes crossing a land portion as per Cerny et al and/or DeBarsy such that each end of each sipe is positioned at a well formed in the tread surface since Li teaches providing a pneumatic tire (heavy load tire size 295/80R22.5) having a tread comprising land portions (circumferential ribs) delimited by circumferential grooves such that a recessed portion 8a, 8b, 15a, 15b (well) is arranged at each end of sipes 6, 7 to prevent chipping at ends of the sipes wherein depth of the recessed portion (well) is at least equal to the depth of the sipe [FIGURES 1-3, paragraphs 34,53; especially FIGURE 2 and 4A]. In other words, Li teaches away from the recessed portion (well) having a depth less than the depth of the sipe. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate from Li that the recessed portion (well) should have a depth at least equal to the depth of the sipe so that the recessed portion (well) can function to prevent chipping at the end of the sipe for the entire depth of the sipe. If the recessed portion (well) has a depth less than the depth of sipe, then the desired function of preventing chipping at the ends of the sipe is lost when the recessed portion (well), but not the sipe, has worn away.
As to claim 16, Buchinger-Barnstorf et al teaches trimming (re-cutting) a circumferential groove.
As to claim 17, Buchinger-Barnstorf et al teaches trimming (re-cutting) a lateral groove.
As to claim 19 (“can be re-cut at least twice”), Buchinger-Barnstorf et al’s tread comprising a circumferential groove (e.g. trial 6) inherently can be re-cut at least twice. It is noted that claim 19 fails to require a method step of re-cutting at least twice.
5) Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchinger-Barnstorf et al (US 2012/0267020) in view of Cerny et al (US 2019/0184760) and/or DeBarsy (US 2009/0095387) and further in view of Li (US 2018/0236821) as applied above and further in view Quantinet et al (US 2016/0137004).
As to claims 17 and 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Buchinger-Barnstorf et al’s pneumatic truck tire such that the tread comprises a transverse re-cuttable groove [claim 17], an oblique re-cuttable groove [claim 18] since (1) Buchinger-Barnstorf et al teaches trimming (recutting) circumferential grooves and/or lateral grooves in a tread of a pneumatic truck tire (heavy load pneumatic tire for heavy vehicle) and (2) Quantinet et al teaches providing a heavy vehicle tire having a tread such that the tread comprises circumferential grooves and oblique grooves (inclined lateral / transverse grooves) as shown in FIGURES 1 or 2 so that the tire has good wear, traction and noise performance.
6) Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchinger-Barnstorf et al (US 2012/0267020) in view of Cerny et al (US 2019/0184760) and/or DeBarsy (US 2009/0095387) and further in view of Li (US 2018/0236821) as applied above and further in view Butz (US 2015/0269468).
As previously mentioned, Buchinger-Barnstorf et al’s tread comprising a circumferential groove (e.g. trial 6) inherently can be re-cut at least twice. IN ANY EVENT: As to claim 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Buchinger-Barnstorf et al’s pneumatic truck tire such that the at least one re-cuttable groove (e.g. the circumferential groove) can be re-cut at least twice since Butz, directed to wear indicator for a vehicle tire, discloses that after reaching the wear limit, tires for commercial vehicles can be recut twice [paragraph 3].
7) Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchinger-Barnstorf et al (US 2012/0267020) in view of Cerny et al (US 2019/0184760) and/or DeBarsy (US 2009/0095387) and further in view of Li (US 2018/0236821) as applied above and further in view of German 976 (DE 102015219976), Mayni (US 2012/0234442) or Collette et al (US 2012/0132331).
As to claims 20-22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Buchinger-Barnstorf et al’s pneumatic truck tire such that an elastomer compound regrooved during a first regrooving operation is different from an elastomer compound regrooved during a second regrooving operation [claim 20], a regroovable elastomer compound is different from at least part of the at least one elastomer compound that constitutes the tread [claim 21], the tread comprises, at least locally, at least two layers of elastomer compounds radially superposed in the tread [claim 22] since (1) Buchinger-Barnstorf et al teaches trimming (recutting) circumferential grooves and/or lateral grooves in a tread of a pneumatic truck tire (heavy load pneumatic tire for heavy vehicle) and (2) (A) German 976 teaches providing a regrooveable commercial vehicle tire for truck / bus with a tread comprising at least two layers (e.g. two layers including tread cap 12 and tread base 13) so that rolling resistance is improved and regrooving ability for increasing service life is increased [FIGURES 1-4, machine translation], (B) Mayni teaches providing a pneumatic truck tire (e.g. heavy load tire size 275/80R22.5) such that the tread comprises at least two layers (e.g. two layers as shown in FIGURE 9 or eight layers as shown in FIGURE 8) wherein hysteresis (tan delta max at 80oC) decreases as the tread wears so as to improve / prevent irregular wear and provide desirable rolling resistance and heat generation characteristics or
(C) Collette et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread such that the tread comprises a base layer and land portions (blocks) comprising at least two layers (thickness each layer = 3 to 8 mm) wherein hardness and tear resistance of these layers increases from lower layer to upper layer to obtain high mileage and low heat generation [FIGURES 1-2].
Bestgen #1
8) Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bestgen #1 (US 2024/0227452) in view of Cerny et al (US 2019/0184760) and/or DeBarsy (US 2009/0095387) and further in view of Li (US 2018/0236821).2
Cerny et al and/or DeBarsy render obvious adding sipes to Bestgen #1’s pneumatic tire having a tread comprising circumferential grooves such that the sipes have a depth greater than the depth of the circumferential grooves.
Li render obvious providing a well at each end of each sipe.
Bestgen #1 discloses a tire comprising tread, crown reinforcement, sidewalls and beads wherein the tread comprises elastomer compound and has a re-cuttable groove and wherein, after a regrooving operation, the recuttable groove has a height HR being greater than or equal to 70% of height HN3 of the re-cuttable groove when the tire is new (height HR > 70% height HN3). Bestgen #1 also teaches a height corresponding to a distance (“distance Y”) between the tread surface when new and the bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove after a previous regrooving operation being greater than or equal to 200% of the height HN3 between the bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove and the tread surface when the tire is new (distance Y > 200% height HN3). Bestgen #1 substantially discloses the claimed invention except for sipes having a depth Hi.
As to claims 12-15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising elastomer compound such that
the tread has at least one re-cuttable groove forming at least one tread pattern element making up a tread pattern of the tire, exhibiting a height HN3 between a bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove and a tread surface when the tire is new, and at least one sipe, flush with the tread surface when the tire is new, exhibiting a height Hi between a bottom of the at least one sipe and the tread surface when the tire is new, wherein the height Hi of the at least one sipe of the tire when new is greater than the height HN3 of the at least one re-cuttable groove of the tire when new, and wherein, after a regrooving operation, a height HR of at least one re-cut groove is greater than or equal to 70% of the height HN3 of the at least one re-cuttable groove of the tire when new height (height HR > 70% height HN3 and height Hi > height HN3) [claim 12],
height Hi of the at least one sipe of the tire when new is greater than 90% of a height corresponding to a distance (“distance Y”) between the tread surface when new and a bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove after a previous regrooving operation (height Hi > 90% distance Y) [claim 13],
height Hi of the at least one sipe of the tire when new is equal to a height corresponding to a distance (“distance Y”) between the tread surface when new and a bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove after a previous regrooving operation (height Hi = 100% distance Y) [claim 14],
a height corresponding to a distance (“distance Y”) between the tread surface when new and the bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove after a previous regrooving operation is greater than or equal to 200% of the height HN3 between a bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove and the tread surface when the tire is new (distance Y > 200% height HN3) [claim 15]
since: (1) Bestgen #1 disclose a tire comprising tread, crown reinforcement, sidewalls and beads wherein the tread comprises elastomer compound and has a re-cuttable groove, wherein, after a regrooving operation, the recuttable groove has a height HR being greater than or equal to 70% of height HN3 of the re-cuttable groove when the tire is new (height HR > 70% height HN3) and wherein a height corresponding to a distance (“distance Y”) between the tread surface when new and the bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove after a previous regrooving operation is greater than or equal to 200% of the height HN3 between the bottom of the at least one re-cuttable groove and the tread surface when the tire is new (distance Y > 200% height HN3) (height HR > 70% height HN3, depth Y (“distance”) > 200 height HN3), and
(2) (A) Cerny et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire for trucks having a tread comprising tread elements separated by circumferential grooves such that land portions comprise both end open sipes having edges at the tread surface for improving traction wherein the sipes have a depth greater than or equal to 100% (e.g. about 101% to about 110%) of the height of tread elements defined by grooves [FIGURES 1-2, paragraphs 2, 28, 31, 38-39, 53] and/or (B) De Barsy teaches providing a pneumatic tire for heavy vehicles having a tread comprising land portions separated by circumferential grooves having full depth “GD” such that land portions are provided with both end open sipes 22 forming additional edges that significantly to the tire’s traction performance in all road conditions wherein the sipes have a depth greater than or equal to groove “GD” (e.g. depth “Z” > depth “GD”) of the circumferential grooves so that the tire has improved traction through the full life of the tire [FIGURES 3-4, 7-8]. Thus, Cerny et al and/or DeBarsy motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Bestgen #1’s pneumatic tire with sipes such that the sipes have a depth greater than the depth of the circumferential grooves when the tire is new. In other words, height Hi > height HN3 [claim 12: height Hi = sipe depth and height HN3 = depth of circumferential groove when the tire is new]. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate from Bestgen #1 and Cerny et al and/or DeBarsy that, when Bestgen #1’s tire is provided with sipes having a depth of greater than groove depth of the circumferential grooves when the tire is new, additional traction provided by the sipes is maintained throughout life of the tire.
With respect to “well” [claim 12], Li discloses a pneumatic tire (heavy load tire size 295/80R22.5) having a tread comprising land portions (circumferential ribs) delimited by circumferential grooves such that a recessed portion 8a, 8b, 15a, 15b (well) is arranged at each end of sipes 6, 7 to prevent chipping at ends of the sipes [FIGURES 1-3, paragraphs 34,53]. Annotated copes of FIGURES 2 and 4A of Li are provided below:
PNG
media_image3.png
572
834
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURES #4 and #5, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Li. In the MARKED UP FIGURES #4 and #5,
“R” is a recessed portion. As can be seen from MARKED UP FIGURES #4 and #5,
each recessed R has a depth greater than depth D7 of sipe 7. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Thus, Li teaches positioning a recessed portion at each end of a sipe such that depth of the recessed portion (well) is at least equal to depth of the sipe to prevent chipping at the ends of the sipe
With respect to each sipe end positioned at a well [claim 12], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Bestgen #1’s tire having sipes crossing a land portion as per Cerny et al and/or DeBarsy such that each end of each sipe is positioned at a well formed in the tread surface since Li teaches providing a pneumatic tire (heavy load tire size 295/80R22.5) having a tread comprising land portions (circumferential ribs) delimited by circumferential grooves such that a recessed portion 8a, 8b, 15a, 15b (well) is arranged at each end of sipes 6, 7 to prevent chipping at ends of the sipes wherein depth of the recessed portion (well) is at least equal to the depth of the sipe [FIGURES 1-3, paragraphs 34,53; especially FIGURE 2 and 4A]. In other words, Li teaches away from the recessed portion (well) having a depth less than the depth of the sipe. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate from Li that the recessed portion (well) should have a depth at least equal to the depth of the sipe so that the recessed portion (well) can function to prevent chipping at the end of the sipe for the entire depth of the sipe. If the recessed portion (well) has a depth less than the depth of sipe, then the desired function of preventing chipping at the ends of the sipe is lost when the recessed portion (well), but not the sipe, has worn away.
As to claims 16-22, note Bestgen #1’s disclosure regarding the recuttable groove, re-cutting and the tread comprising at least two layers of different elastomer compound.
Remarks
9) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
Applicant's arguments filed 3-25-26 and entered per RCE filed 4-27-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li does not disclose a height or a depth for the recessed portions. Applicant is incorrect. See FIGURES 2 and 4A of Li. Also, see MARKED UP FIGURES #4, #5 provided above.
In view of the English translation filed 10-8-25 of applicant’s priority document
FR 2203108 (filing date 4-5-22), applicant has perfected applicant’s 119 foreign priority claim. Accordingly, WO 2023/222500 to Bestgen #2 (published 11-23-23, effectively filed 5-18-22) has been removed as prior art under 102(a)(2) and WO 2022/180325 to Bestgen #1 (published 9-1-22) has been removed as prior art under 102(a)(1). However, US 2024/0227452 to Bestgen #1 (effectively filed 2-25-21) remains available as prior art under 102(a)(2).
US 2024/0227452 to Bestgen #1 may be removed as 102(a)(2) type prior art by providing a proper statement of common ownership.
10) No claim is allowed.
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 on 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 2, 2026
1 In the Non-Final Office Action dated 7-10-25, examiner created a MARKED UP FIGURE #1 for Japan 602 (JP 61-098602). See page 4 of Non-Final Office Action dated 7-10-25. The rejection using Japan 602 has been withdrawn. Examiner is maintaining numbering of the MARKED UP FIGURES (e.g. not changing the above “MARKED UP FIGURE #2” to --MARKED UP FIGURE #1--) to use consistent language and avoid confusion.
2 US 2024/0227452 to Bestgen #1 (effectively filed 2-25-21) is available as prior art under 102(a)(2).
Prosecution Insights