vailaNotice 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) Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, “a plurality of width direction groove” should be --a plurality of width direction grooves--.
3) 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.
(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.
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.
Koishikawa et al
5) Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by 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 fine 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.
The narrow grooves have a zigzag trace in the center blocks [FIGURES 1, 4]. In example 1, the sipes are inclined at an angle of 65 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction and the narrow grooves in the central region of blocks are inclined at an angle of 45 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction. The tire has improved braking performance on ice and running performance on snow.
As to claims 1 and 2, the claimed tire is anticipated by Koishikawa et al’s pneumatic tire as per Example 1. The claimed shallow grooves read on the narrow grooves, which have a depth less than depth of the sipes. As to angle difference, 65 degrees - 40 degrees = 20 degrees. This value of 20 degrees falls with the claimed range of 30 degrees or less.
6) Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koishikawa et al (US 2023/0311576).
Koishikawa et al’s disclosure is described above.
As to claims 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 θ1 of the sipes is
45 degrees or more with respect to the circumferential direction, angle θ2 of the narrow grooves (shallow grooves) is 45 degrees or more with respect to the circumferential direction and angle θ1 minus angle θ2 is 15 degrees or less since Koishikawa et al teaches providing the sipes such that the sipes are inclined at an angle of 45 to 80 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction and providing the narrow grooves (shallow grooves) such that, in the central region of each block, the narrow grooves are inclined at an angle of 40 to 65 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction.
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.
Japan 955
7) Claims 1-3 and 5 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 Japan 955 (JP 2008-221955).
Japan 955 discloses a pneumatic tire (passenger size 265/70R16) having a tread comprising blocks delimited by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves [FIGURES 1-5]. The blocks comprise sipes 6 and shallow grooves 7. Japan 955 discloses:
angle α (lateral groove) = 40-70 degrees with respect to circumferential direction,
angle α (sipe) = angle α (lateral groove)
angle β (shallow groove) = 80-100 degrees with respect to lateral groove,
depth (shallow groove) < depth (sipe).
width (shallow groove) = 0.1-0.8 mm,
depth (shallow groove) = 0.1-0.8 mm.
See FIGURE 1 and machine translation. An annotated copy of Japan 955’s FIGURE 6 is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
876
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Japan 955. In the above MARKED UP FIGURE:
δ1 + α = 180 degrees
δ2 = δ1 - β
In EXAMPLE 1, angle α = 65 degrees and angle β = 80 degrees. Thus, the sipe is inclined at an angle α (“angle θ1”) of 65 degrees with respect to circumferential direction and the shallow groove is inclined at an angle δ2 (“angle θ2”) of 35 degrees with respect to circumferential direction as demonstrated below:
angle α (lateral groove) = 65 degrees with respect to circumferential direction,
angle α (sipe) = angle α (lateral groove),
angle β (shallow groove) = 80 degrees with respect to lateral groove,
α = 65 degrees,
β = 80 degrees,
δ1 + α = 180 degrees,
δ1 + 65 degrees = 180 degrees
δ1 = 115 degrees
δ2 = δ1 - β
δ2 = 115 degrees - 80 degrees
δ2 = 35 degrees
The difference between angle α (“angle θ1”) and angle δ2 (“angle θ2”) is 30 degrees [65 degrees - 35 degrees = 30 degrees]. This value of 30 degrees falls within the claimed range of 30 degrees or less. When angle α = 45 degrees (falling within Japan 955’s disclosed range of 40-70 degrees) and angle β = 90 degrees (Japan 955’s Examples
2, 4), then the sipe is inclined at an angle α (“angle θ1”) of 45 degrees with respect to circumferential direction and the shallow groove is inclined at an angle δ2 (“angle θ2”) of 45 degrees with respect to circumferential direction as demonstrated below:
angle α (lateral groove) = 45 degrees with respect to circumferential direction,
angle α (sipe) = angle α (lateral groove),
angle β (shallow groove) = 90 degrees with respect to lateral groove,
α = 45 degrees,
β = 90 degrees,
δ1 + α = 180 degrees,
δ1 + 45 degrees = 180 degrees
δ1 = 135 degrees
δ2 = δ1 - β
δ2 = 135 degrees - 90 degrees
δ2 = 45 degrees
The difference between angle α (“angle θ1”) and angle δ2 (“angle θ2”) is 0 degrees [45 degrees - 45 degrees = 0 degrees]. This value of 0 degrees falls within the claimed range of 30 degrees or less (15 degrees or less). Snowy characteristics of tread surface of pneumatic tire for icy and snowy roads typified by new studless tire are improved and variations in performance on ice due to weather are reduced [machine translation].
As to claims 1 and 2, the claimed tire is anticipated by Japan 955’s Example 1. IN ANY EVENT: As to claims 1-3 and 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 955’s pneumatic tire such that “angle θ1” of the sipes is
45 degrees or more with respect to the circumferential direction, “angle θ2” of the narrow grooves (shallow grooves) is 45 degrees or more with respect to the circumferential direction and “angle θ1” minus “angle θ2” is 30 degrees or less (or 15 degrees or less) since Japan 955 teaches that the sipes are inclined at angle α = 40-70 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction and the shallow grooves are inclined at angle β = 80-100 degrees with respect to the lateral grooves. AS EXPLAINED ABOVE: When angle α = 45 degrees (falling within Japan 955’s disclosed range of 40-70 degrees) and angle β = 90 degrees (Japan 955’s Examples 2, 4), then the sipe is inclined at an angle α (“angle θ1”) of 45 degrees with respect to circumferential direction and the shallow groove is inclined at an angle δ2 (“angle θ2”) of 45 degrees with respect to circumferential direction. The difference between angle α (“angle θ1”) and angle δ2 (“angle θ2”) is 0 degrees [45 degrees - 45 degrees =
0 degrees]. This value of 0 degrees falls within the claimed range of 30 degrees or less (15 degrees or less).
8) Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 955 (JP 2008-221955) in view of Canada 322 (CA 3196322) or German 290 (DE 102015224290).
As to claims 4 and 6-8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to provide Japan 955’s pneumatic tire such that the groove width of the shallow grooves is 75 to 100% of the sipe width of the sipes since (1) Japan 955 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 265/70R16) having a tread comprising sipes and shallow grooves such that the shallow grooves have a width = 0.1 to 0.8 mm and (2) (A) Canada 322 teaches providing a pneumatic passenger tire having a tread comprising sipes and shallow grooves such that width of shallow grooves = 0.3 to 0.6 mm and width of sipes = 0.4 to 1.0 mm [FIGURE 1] or (B) German 290 teaches providing a pneumatic passenger tire having a tread comprising sipes and shallow grooves such that width of shallow grooves = 0.2 to 0.5 mm and width of sipes = 0.4 to 0.6 mm [FIGURE 1, machine translation].
Remarks
9) The remaining references are of interest.
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 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
February 6, 2026