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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6-24-26 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. 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.
4) Claims 1-7 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.
Claim 1 describes “cuts separating them, wherein the cuts are circumferential cuts” (line 5) and subsequently describes “the median portion comprising at least one cut”. It is unclear if the median portion require at least one circumferential cut. The apparent literal interpretation of “the median portion comprising at least one cut”, which broadly describes “at least one cut”, is the median portion does not require at least one circumferential cut. However, the apparent intended interpretation of “the median portion comprising at least one cut” is that the median portion requires at least one circumferential cut. See description of “the cuts are circumferential cuts” (line 5), which precedes the description of “at least one cut” (line 8) and applicant’s arguments regarding circumferential cuts having the claimed structural relationship. In order to clarify claim 1, it is suggested to change --the median portion comprising at least one cut” to --the median portion comprising at least one circumferential cut--.
5) 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.
6) Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zivkovic et al (US 2020/0298624) in view of Ishizaka (US 2022/0097456).
Zivkovic et al discloses a pneumatic tire (e.g. heavy duty tire size 315/70R22.5) having a tread comprising an external layer Ce (TREAD) comprising rubber material and an internal layer Ci (INTERMEDIATE LAYER) comprising rubber material, a carcass reinforcement and a crown reinforcement [FIGURE 2, paragraphs 1-4, 68, 73-81, 85]. The tread comprising circumferential cuts 2, 3 (two circumferential cuts 2 and three circumferential cuts 3) wherein circumferential cuts 2 are circumferential grooves continuously open to the tread surface and circumferential cuts 3 comprise wide external groove parts 31, which are open to the tread surface and wide internal groove parts 31’, which are hidden below the tread surface. The wide internal groove parts 31 are extended to the tread surface by external sipes 32 (narrow second portion) [FIGURE 2, paragraph 84]. FIGURE 2 of Zivkovic et al is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
350
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from FIGURE 2, the internal layer Ci (INTERMEDIATE LAYER) has a substantially constant thickness across the entire tread width of the tread, the circumferential cuts 3 are located in a median portion having an axial width at most equal to 80% of the tread width, the wide internal groove parts 31’ have a width greater than a width of the external sipes 32, and the wide internal groove parts 31’ have a height of about 67% of the depth of the circumferential cut 3. 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). It is noted that claim 1 fails to describe structure defining the boundaries for the median portion and that Zivkovic et al’s tire inherently has a “median portion” separating lateral portions. Zivkovic et al discloses:
thickness E1 (external layer Ce) = 12 mm,
thickness E2 (internal layer Ci) = 3 mm,
depth H of circumferential cuts 2, 3 = 12 mm.
See paragraphs 70, 84. Zivkovic et al substantially discloses claimed invention, but is silent as to width of external sipe 32 and width of wide internal groove part 31’.
As to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Zivkovic et al’s pneumatic heavy duty tire such that:
the circumferential cut 3 of the median portion has a wide radially inner first portion (wide internal groove part 31’) extending radially outwards from the bottom of the cut, over a height H1 at least equal to 0.2 times the depth H of the cut, and having a mean width W1 greater than 2 mm, wherein the at least one cut of the median portion has a narrow second portion (sipe 32), extending radially outwards from the radially inner first portion over a height H2 at least equal to 4 mm and at most equal to the difference between the depth H of the cut and the depth H1 of the wide first portion, and having a mean width W2 at most equal to 2 mm [claim 1]
and the minimum thickness Ei of the intermediate layer and the mean width W1 of the wide radially inner first portion of the at least one cut of the median portion satisfy the relationship: Ei3/W1<=12 mm2, Ei and W1 being expressed in mm [claim 1],
since Ishizaka et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire (heavy duty tire size 315/70R22.5) having a tread comprising circumferential cuts in a median portion of the tread wherein these circumferential cuts comprise a narrow external groove portion and wide internal groove portion such that width of the narrow external portion is 1.0 to 4.0 mm (e.g. 1.5 or 1.6 mm), maximum width of a widened portion 212 of the wide internal groove portion is 3.0 to 8.0 mm (e.g. 4 mm or 6 mm) and height of the widened portion 212 of wide internal groove portion is 30 to 70% (e.g. 60%) of depth of the circumferential cut to suppress a decrease in wet traction performance while improving rolling resistance [FIGURES 1-4, paragraphs 7, 9, 19, 29, 37, 43-44, 48, INVENTION EXAMPLES 3, 4, 9, 11].
As to claim 1: Zivkovic et al discloses Ei = 3 mm, which falls within the claimed range of 2 to 4 mm. Moreover, Ishizaka motivates one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Zivkovic et al’s pneumatic heavy duty tire such that width W1 (external sipe 32 = narrow second portion) is less than or equal to 2 mm and width W2 (wide internal groove part = wide radially inner first portion) is greater than 2 mm such that Ei3/W1<=12 mm2 is satisfied. FOR EXAMPLE: When Zivkovic et al’s pneumatic heavy duty tire is provided such that thickness Ei of internal layer Ci (INTERMEDIATE LAYER) is 3 mm [as per Zivkovic et al] and such that W1 = 1.6 mm (sipe width) and W2 = 4 mm [as per Ishizaka], then Ei3/W1 = 6.75 mm2, which falls within the claimed range of less than or equal to 12 mm2. FOR EXAMPLE: When Zivkovic et al’s pneumatic heavy duty tire is provided such that thickness Ei of internal layer Ci (INTERMEDIATE LAYER) is 3 mm [as per Zivkovic et al] and such that W1 = 1.6 mm (sipe width) and W2 = 6 mm [as per Ishizaka], then Ei3/W1 = 4.5 mm2, which falls within the claimed range of less than or equal to 12 mm2. The optimum widths W1 and W2 for the circumferential cut in the median portion of Zivkovic et al’s pneumatic tire would have been obvious and could have been determined without undue experimentation in view of the above noted disclosure of Ishizaka. Furthermore, the ratio Ei3/W1 is necessarily determined by the parameters Ei and W1 wherein Zivkovic et al discloses thickness Ei and Ishizaka renders obvious widthW1.
As to claim 1: With respect to height H1 (wide radially inner first portion) being greater than 20% depth H (circumferential cut) and height H2 (narrow second portion)
is greater than or equal to 4 mm, Zivkovic et al discloses depth of circumferential cut = 12 mm and Ishizaka renders obvious height of wide radially inner portion = 60% of depth of circumferential cut. When depth H of circumferential cut = 12 mm [Zivkovic et al] and height H1 (wide radially inner first portion) = 60% depth H (circumferential cut) [Zivkovic et a], then H1 = 0.6 H (60% falling within the claimed range of at least 20%) and H2 = 4.8 mm (falling within the claimed range of at least 4 mm).
With respect to “constant thickness Ei” [claim 1], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Zivkovic et al’s pneumatic heavy duty tire such that the intermediate layer comprises a rubber material having a minimum thickness Ei measured between the bottom of the cut and the crown reinforcement that is constant over the axial width L1 since (1) Zivkovic et al’s teaches that the pneumatic heavy duty tire comprises an internal layer Ci (INTERMEDIATE LAYER) between the bottom of the circumferential cut 3 and the crown reinforcement 7 wherein the thickness Ei of the internal layer Ci (INTERMEDIATE LAYER) is 3 mm [paragraph 83]; only a single thickness being described and (2) Zivkovic et al illustrates the thickness Ei of the internal layer Ci (INTERMEDIATE LAYER) being substantially constant over the tread width [FIGURE 2].
With respect to crown reinforcement [claim 1], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Zivkovic et al’s pneumatic heavy duty tire such that the crown reinforcement 7 comprises at least one crown layer comprising reinforcers embedded in a rubber material since official notice is taken that it is well known / conventional per se in the tire art to provide a pneumatic heavy duty tire having a crown reinforcement such that the crown reinforcement comprises at least one crown layer comprising reinforcers embedded in a rubber material.
As to claim 3, Ishizaka teaches height of the widened portion 212 of wide internal groove portion is 30 to 70% (e.g. 60%) of height of the circumferential cut. The value 0.6 falls within the claimed range of at most equal to 0.6.
7) Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zivkovic et al (US 2020/0298624) in view of Ishizaka (US 2022/0097456) as applied above and further in view of Volk et al (US 2014/0000773).
As to claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Zivkovic et al’s pneumatic heavy duty tire such that the internal layer Ci (INTERMEDIATE LAYER) comprises a median portion separating two lateral portions of said intermediate layer, having an axial width Lim at most equal to the axial width Lm of the median portion of the tread and comprising a rubber material of different chemical composition from those of the rubber materials of the two lateral portions of said intermediate layer since Volk et al teaches a pneumatic commerical vehicle tire having a tread comprising tread cap 5 comprising rubber and tread base 6 (intermediate layer) comprising rubber and belt bandage 7 (crown reinforcement) and belt 2 wherein the belt bandage comprises rubberized textile reinforcing components (reinforcers) embedded in a rubber material and the belt comprises two bracing plies comprising steel cords (reinforcers) embedded in rubber, the tread base 6 (intermediate layer) comprises a central segment 6a and lateral segments 6b, the central segment and lateral segments have different rubber compositions [TABLE 2], the tread base 6 (intermediate layer) has a thickness 0.5 to 5 mm, preferably 0.7 to 3 mm [paragraph 19]; the tire having lower rolling resistance while not having a negative influence on handling.
As to claim 5, see above comment for claim 3.
8) Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zivkovic et al (US 2020/0298624) in view of Ishizaka (US 2022/0097456) as applied above and further in view of as applied above and further in view of Izumo (US 2023/0023252).
As to claims 4 and 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Zivkovic et al’s pneumatic heavy duty tire such that the at least one cut of the median portion has a wide radially outer third portion, radially to the outside of the narrow second portion, opening onto the tread surface and having a width W3, measured on the tread surface, at least equal to 2 mm since Izumo teaches providing a pneumatic tire (heavy duty tire size 12R22.5) having a tread comprising circumferential cuts in a median portion of the tread wherein each circumferential cut comprises a narrow outer portion (width = 1-2 mm) and a wide inner portion (width 2-12 mm) and wherein height of the wide inner portion is 1/3 to 2/3 depth of the circumferential cut such that the narrow outer portion is chamfered so as to have a width greater than the width of the narrow outer portion [FIGURE 4] as an alternative to the narrow outer portion not being chamfered [FIGURE 3] to improve drainage performance [FIGURES 1-4, paragraphs 70-87, 169, especially 79, 80, 83, 87, 169].
9) Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zivkovic et al (US 2020/0298624) in view of Ishizaka (US 2022/0097456) and further in view of Volk et al (US 2014/0000773) as applied above and further in view of Izumo (US 2023/0023252).
As to claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Zivkovic et al’s pneumatic heavy duty tire such that the at least one cut of the median portion has a wide radially outer third portion, radially to the outside of the narrow second portion, opening onto the tread surface and having a width W3, measured on the tread surface, at least equal to 2 mm since Izumo teaches providing a pneumatic tire (heavy duty tire size 12R22.5) having a tread comprising circumferential cuts in a median portion of the tread wherein each circumferential cut comprises a narrow outer portion (width = 1-2 mm) and a wide inner portion (width 2-12 mm) and wherein height of the wide inner portion is 1/3 to 2/3 depth of the circumferential cut such that the narrow outer portion is chamfered so as to have a width greater than the width of the narrow outer portion [FIGURE 4] as an alternative to the narrow outer portion not being chamfered [FIGURE 3] to improve drainage performance [FIGURES 1-4, paragraphs 70-87, 169, especially 79, 80, 83, 87, 169].
Remarks
10) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
11) No claim is allowed.
12) 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
July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights