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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on [1]. Claims [2] are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakajima (US 2023/0079496 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 16, Nakajima teaches a tire for passenger vehicles (Para. [0017]) comprising a tread (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 1) comprising circumferential cuts (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 3A-D) with first (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 3A) and second (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 3B) outer main circumferential cuts. As the tread pattern height is defined by the depth of the main circumferential cuts, all the circumferential cuts have a depth of 100% of the tread pattern height. Nakajima also teaches a first axially lateral portion (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4A) and a second axially lateral portion (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4B) where each axially lateral portion comprises an axial portion defined as having a width of 50% of the axially lateral portion width and extending outward from the first or second outer main circumferential groove.
The tread comprises transverse cuts (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5) in the first axially lateral portion where each cut has an axially inner portion extending in the axial portion. The transverse cuts comprise at least one sound dispersion pair comprising a first transverse cut (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5A) and a second transverse cut (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5B), where each transverse cut has a width of less than 1.0 mm (Para. [0037]), which makes La1/La2 equal to 1, which is within the range of the inequality 1 ≤ La1/La2 ≤4.0 when La1 ≤ 1.5 mm. The axially inner portions of the first and second transverse cuts both extend at a non-zero angle were the first and second non-zero mean angle is different from each other (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5A, 5B; Para. [0045]). Finally, Nakajima teaches that the angle of the first and second transverse cuts vary in a range of up to 70 degrees (Para. [0049]). This means the difference between the first and second mean angle is less than 70 degrees, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5-40 degrees which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 22, Nakajima teaches that the transverse cuts formed in the first axially lateral portion comprise at least one sound dispersion trio comprising a first (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5a), a second (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5B), and a third (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5c). Each transverse cut of the trio has an axially inner portion extending in the axial portion of the first axially lateral portion and each transverse cut has a width of less than 1.0 mm (Para. [0037]), which make La1=La2=L3 and La1/La3 equal to 1, which is within the range of the inequality 1 ≤ La1/La3 ≤4.0 when La1 ≤ 1.5 mm. The axially inner portions of the first, second, and third transverse cuts all extend at a non-zero angle were the first, second, and third non-zero mean angles are different from each other (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5A, 5B, 5C; Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 25, Nakajima teaches that the first and second transverse cuts of the sound dispersion pair are circumferentially adjacent (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5A, 5B).
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 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (US 2023/0079496 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Nakajima teaches that the angle of the first and second transverse cuts is 0 to 70 degrees (Para. [0045]), which overlaps with the claimed range of less than or equal to 50 degrees which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 20, Nakajima teaches that the first portion (Fig.1, Ref. Num. 11) can contain just transverse cuts angled at a first and second angle (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5A, 5B; Para. [0051]) and the second portion (Fig.1, Ref. Num. 12) can contain just transverse cuts angled at a third and fourth angle (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5D, 5E; Para. [0057]) in the opposite direction with no cuts angled at a zero-degree angle (Para. [0063]). This would mean that 50% of the transverse cuts would be angled one of the first or second different values. As the traverse cuts have the same width throughout their whole length (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5), Lamax/La = 1, which is within the claimed range when Lamax ≤ 1.5 mm (Para. [0037]) and 100% of the transverse cuts with mean angles equal to the first or second value will have that maximum width.
Regarding claim 21, Nakajima teaches that the transvers cuts of the first axially lateral portions have a mean angle of equal to one of four values (Para. [0051], [0057]), which means that 25% of the transverse cuts have a mean angle equal to the first value and 25% of the transverse cuts have a mean angle equal to the second value.
Regarding claim 23, Nakajima teaches that the first portion (Fig.1, Ref. Num. 11) can contain just transverse cuts angled at a first, second angle, and third angle (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5A, 5B, 5C; Para. [0051]) and the second portion (Fig.1, Ref. Num. 12) can contain just transverse cuts angled at a third, fourth, and firth angle (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5D, 5E, 5F; Para. [0057]) in the opposite direction with no cuts angled at a zero-degree angle (Para. [0063]). This would mean that 50% of the transverse cuts would be angled one of the first, second, or third different values. As the traverse cuts have the same width throughout their whole length (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5), Lamax/La = 1, which is within the claimed range when Lamax ≤ 1.5 mm (Para. [0037]) and 100% of the transverse cuts with mean angles equal to the first, second, or third value will have that maximum width.
Regarding claim 24, Nakajima teaches that the transvers cuts of the first axially lateral portions have a mean angle of equal to one of six values (Para. [0051], [0057]), which means that 16.7% of the transverse cuts have a mean angle equal to the first value, 16.7% of the transverse cuts have a mean angle equal to the second value, and 16.7% of the transverse cuts have a mean angle equal to the third value.
Regarding claim 26, Nakajima teaches that the angle of the first and second transverse cuts vary in a range of up to 70 degrees (Para. [0049]). This means the difference between the first and second mean angle is less than 70 degrees, which overlaps with the claimed range of less than or equal to 20 degrees which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 28, Nakajima teaches that the first portion (Fig.1, Ref. Num. 11) can contain just transverse cuts angled at a first and second angle (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5A, 5B; Para. [0051]) and the second portion (Fig.1, Ref. Num. 12) can contain just transverse cuts angled at a third and fourth angle (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5D, 5E; Para. [0057]) in the opposite direction with no cuts angled at a zero-degree angle (Para. [0063]). This would mean that there is N adjacent transverse cuts forming N pairs of transverse cuts. As the traverse cuts have the same width throughout their whole length (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 5), Lamax/La = 1, which is within the claimed range when Lamax ≤ 1.5 mm (Para. [0037]). As the transverse cuts alternate between four different mean angles, the mean angles of 100% of the pairs of transverse cuts are different.
Regarding claim 29, Nakajima teaches that the angle of the first and second transverse cuts vary in a range of up to 70 degrees (Para. [0049]). This means the difference between the first and second mean angle is less than 70 degrees in 100% of the sound dispersion pairs, which overlaps with the claimed range of less than or equal to 20 degrees which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 30, Nakajima teaches that the angle of the first and second transverse cuts vary in a range of up to 70 degrees (Para. [0049]). This means the difference between the first and second mean angle is less than 70 degrees in 100% of the sound dispersion pairs, which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 5 degrees which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the difference in angles between the grooves of the transverse cuts is 140 degrees and not 70 degrees as the angle range taught by Nakajima is -70 to +70 degrees. However, the sound dispersion pairs in the rejection are always defined by grooves that are angled in the same direction (Fig. 1, A-C or D-F), which means that the difference would be less than 70 degrees, either -70 to 0 or 0 to 70. Additionally, applicant argues that the range taught by Nakajima is too broad to read on the smaller claimed range; however, a broader range is a prima facie case of obviousness for a smaller range absent data showing the criticality of the smaller, claimed range and the instant application does not have experimental data supporting the criticality of that smaller range. See MPEP 214405 I.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS J WEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-2664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm.
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 Smith 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.
/N.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749