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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
3) Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 (dependent on claim 1) fails to further limit claim 1 because the description of "the inclination angle θ2 is 45o or more" in claim 3 broadens the limitation of "an inclination angle θ2 ... is equal to or greater than 60o" in amended claim 1.
Claim 5 (indirectly dependent on claim 1) fails to further limit claim 1 because the description of "the inclination angle θ2 is 45o or more" in claim 5 broadens the limitation of "an inclination angle θ2 ... is equal to or greater than 60o" in amended claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
4) 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.
5) Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koishikawa et al (US 2023/0311576).
Koishikawa et al discloses a pneumatic tire (passenger size 195/65R15) having a tread comprising land portions (rib and blocks) [FIGURE 1]. The blocks comprise sipes and narrow shallow grooves wherein:
angle (sipe) = 45-80 degrees with respect to circumferential direction,
width (sipe) < 1.0 mm,
depth (sipe) > 2.0 mm,
angle (narrow groove / central region of land portion)
= 40-65 degrees with respect to circumferential direction,
angle (narrow groove / edge region of land portion)
= 50-80 degrees with respect to circumferential direction,
width (narrow groove) = 0.10-0.80 mm,
depth (narrow groove) = 0.05-1.50 mm.
See paragraphs 9-12, 30, 65-67. A partial copy of FIGURE 1 of Koishikawa et al is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
389
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from FIGURE 1, the tread comprises a center land portion 33 comprising center blocks separated by lug grooves 331 (width direction groooves 331) wherein the center blocks comprise sipes 4 and zigzag narrow grooves 5. An annotated copy of FIGURE 4 of Koishikawa et al is provided below:
PNG
media_image2.png
914
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of FIGURE 4 of Koishikawa et al. In the MARKED UP FIGURE,
4 is a sipe, NG1 is a first narrow groove, NG2 is a second narrow groove and NG3 is
a third narrow groove wherein zigzag narrow groove 5 comprises first narrow groove NG1, second narrow groove NG2 and third narrow groove NG3. FIGURES 1 and 4 illustrate the lug grooves 331 (width direction grooves) being inclined at a small acute angle (angle less than or equal to 30 degrees) with respect to the axial direction. The tire has improved braking performance on ice and running performance on snow [paragraph 5]. In claim 1, the claimed shallow grooves read on the second narrow grooves NG2 (depth = 0.05 to 1.50 mm). Claim 1 is generic to each end of the shallow groove opening to a circumferential groove, a width direction groove or another shallow groove.
As to claims 1-3 and 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to provide Koishikawa et al’s pneumatic tire such that:
angle of the lug grooves 331 (width direction grooves) with respect to the tire width direction is equal to less than 30o [claim 1],
angle θ1 of the sipes relative to the tire circumferential direction
is greater than 0o and less than 90o [claim 1],
angle θ2 of the shallow grooves relative to the circumferential direction
is equal to or greater than 60o and less than 90o [claim 1],
magnitude of difference between angle θ1 and angle θ2 is 30o or less [claim 1],
angle θ1 is 45o or more [claim 2],
magnitude of difference between angle θ1 and angle θ2 is 15o or less
[claims 3, 5]
since:
(1) Koishikawa et al shows center blocks comprising sipes 4 and narrow shallow grooves 5 wherein the center blocks are separated by lug grooves 331 (width direction groove) and wherein the lug grooves 331 (widthwise grooves) are inclined at a small acute angle (angle less than or equal to 30 degrees) with respect to the axial direction [FIGURES 1, 4];
(2) Koishikawa et al teaches the sipes are inclined at an angle of 45 to 80 degrees (e.g. 70 degrees) with respect to the circumferential direction; and
(3) Koishikawa et al teaches that the narrow grooves NG2 (i.e. the central region of narrow grooves 5) are inclined at an angle of 40 to 65 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction.
Hence, Koishikawa et al teaches sipes being inclined at an angle of 45 to 80 degrees (e.g. 70 degrees) with respect to the circumferential direction. This range of 45 to 80 degrees (70 degrees) falls within the claimed range of greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees. FIGURE 1 and 4 illustrate the lug grooves 331 (widthwise grooves) being inclined at a small acute angle with respect to the axial direction and thereby render obvious an angle within the claimed range of equal to or less than 30 degrees with respect to the tire width direction. 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).
Koishikawa et al teaches the narrow grooves NG2 (i.e. the central region of narrow grooves 5) being inclined at an angle of 40 to 65 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction. This range of 40 to 65 degrees overlaps the claimed range of equal to or greater than 60 degrees and less than 90 degrees. The value 65 degrees (end point of Koishikawa et al) falls within the claimed range of equal to or greater than 60 degrees and less than 90 degrees. It is noted that narrow grooves NG2 extend linearly from one end of narrow groove NG2 to the other end of narrow groove NG2 (see MARKED UP FIGURE). It is noted that claim 1 reads on and fails to exclude the ends of the claimed shallow groove connecting to other shallow grooves.
When angle θ1 (sipes) = 70 degrees [FIGURES 1, 4, paragraphs 9, 65 of Koishikawa et al] and angle θ2 (shallow grooves) = 65 degrees [paragraphs 10, 66 of Koishikawa et al, then θ1 - θ2 = 5 degrees. This value of 5 degrees falls within the claimed range of 30o or less [claim 1] and within the claimed range of 15o or less [claims 3, 5].
As to claims 4 and 6-8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to provide Koishikawa et al’s pneumatic tire such that the groove width of the shallow grooves is 75 to 100% of the sipe width of the sipes since Koishikawa et al teaches that the narrow grooves (shallow grooves) have a width of 0.10 to 0.80 mm and the sipes have a width less than 1.0 mm.
Remarks
6) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
Applicant's arguments filed 3-26-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Koishikawa et al teaches narrow grooves having a zigzag shape which do not extend linearly from one end to the other end. This argument is not persuasive since (1) narrow grooves NG2 extend linearly from one end of narrow groove NG2 to the other end of narrow groove NG2 (see MARKED UP FIGURE) and (2) claim 1 reads on and fails to exclude the ends of the claimed shallow groove connecting to other shallow grooves.
7) No claim is allowed.
8) 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.
9) 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
September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights