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. 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.
3) Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volk et al (US 2014/0000773) in view of Japan 908 (JP 02-303908) and Ohashi (US 2009/0050248).
Volk et al discloses a pneumatic tire (passenger tire size 205/55R16) for an automobile 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 tread comprises grooves separating five land portions (raised elements made of rubber). The tire has lower rolling resistance while not having a negative influence on handling. See FIGURE 1.
As to claims 1-7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Volk et al’s pneumatic tire such that:
the tread comprises a median portion having an axial width Lm at most equal to 80% of the axial width Lt of the tread and separating two lateral portions, the median portion comprises at least one cut, the at least one cut having a depth H, measured perpendicular to the tread surface, between the tread surface and a bottom of the cut, the intermediate layer comprising a rubber material having a minimum thickness Ei, measured between the bottom of the cut and the crown reinforcement wherein the at least one cut of the median portion has a wide radially inner first portion 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, 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, wherein the minimum thickness Ei of the intermediate layer, measured between the bottom of the cut and the crown reinforcement, is at least equal to 2 mm and at most equal to 4 mm and wherein 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],
the 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 [claim 2],
the at least one cut of the median portion has a radially inner first portion extending radially outwards from the bottom of the cut, over a height H1 at most equal to 0.6 times the depth H of the cut [claims 3, 5],
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 [claims 4, 6 and 7]
since (1) Japan 908 teaches providing a pneumatic having a tread comprising sipes in blocks 3 delimited by a circumferential groove 1 and lateral grooves 2 such that each sipe comprises a narrow width portion and at least one wide portion wherein the width of the narrow portion is 0.2 to 0.6 mm, the width of the wide portion is 1.5 to 5 times the width of the narrow portion (e.g. 1.0 to 3.0 mm) and the at least one wide portion covers 30-80% of the area of a sipe wall to secure drainability and improve the tire’s driving and braking performances on wet roads and prevent partial abrasion [FIGURES 1-12, translation], (2) Japan 908 teaches providing (i) a sipe having one lower wide portion and one upper narrow portion [FIGURES 5-6] or (ii) a sipe having one lower wide portion, one narrow middle portion narrow portion and one wide upper portion [FIGURES 7-8] and (3) Ohashi teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 205/65R15) having a tread comprising five rows of blocks comprising blocks comprising sipes and being separated by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves wherein the sipes have a depth for example of 8 mm [FIGURE 1, paragraph 52].
Claim 1 and the applied prior art are compared in the following TABLE:
CLAIM 1
PRIOR ART
width W2 (NARROW) < 2 mm
height H2 (NARROW) > 4 mm
H2 < H - H1
H = depth cut
width W2 (NARROW) = 0.2-0.6 mm
area (NARROW) = 20-70% area (WALL)
[Japan 908]
depth H (cut/sipe) = 8 mm [Ohashi]
width W1 (WIDE) > 2 mm
height H1 (WIDE) > 0.2 H
width W1 (WIDE) = 1.5 to 5 W2 (e.g. 1.0 to 3.0 mm)
height H1 (WIDE) > 0.25 H
area (WIDE) = 30-80% (WALL)
[Japan 908]
thickness Ei (INTERMEDIATE) = 2-4 mm
thickness Ei (INTERMEDIATE) = 0.5-5 mm
thickness Ei (preferred) = 0.7-3 mm
[Volk et al]
Thus, Japan 908 and Ohashi motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tread of Volk et al’s pneumatic tire such that the tread comprises five rows of blocks [FIGURE 1, Ohashi] and such that each block comprises sipes having a narrow portion and at least one wide portion [Japan 908, FIGURES 5-6 or FIGURES 7-8] to obtain the expected and predictable benefits of securing drainability and improving the tire’s driving and braking performances on wet roads and preventing abrasion. The description of “for a heavy duty vehicle” in the preamble of claim 1 relates to intended use and fails to require a tire not suggested by the applied prior art. The tread of Volk et al’s pneumatic tire inherently has a median portion having an axial width Lm at most equal to 80% of the axial width of the tread; it being emphasized that the claims fail to describe the boundaries of the median portion in terms of tire structure. The center blocks comprising sipes (suggested by Ohashi) are located in a median portion of the tread. As to the claimed width of narrow second portion, Japan 908’s range of 0.2 to 0.6 mm falls within the claimed range of at most equal to 2 mm. As to claimed width of wide inner first portion, Japan 908’s range 1 to 3 mm includes 3 mm which falls within the claimed range of greater than 2 mm. EXAMPLE: When Volk et al’s tire comprises Japan 908’s sipe as per FIGURE 5-6 and a sipe depth of 8 mm as per Ohashi, then the claimed numerical limitations of claim 1 are satisfied as indicated in the following:
Japan 908’s sipe of FIGURES 5-6 and Ohashi’s sipe depth = 8 mm
depth H (cut/sipe) = height H1 + height H2 = 8 mm
[sipe depth = 8 mm as per Ohashi]
width W2 (NARROW) = 0.6 mm [falling within Japan 908’s range of 0.2 to 0.6 mm]
height H2 (NARROW) = 4 mm [less than sipe depth of 8 mm per Ohashi]
height H2 (NARROW) = 50% depth H (sipe) [4mm/8mmx100% = 50%]
area (NARROW) ≈ 50% area (WALL) [falling within Japan 908’s range of 20-70%]
width W2 (WIDE) = 3 mm [using d2 = 1.5 to 5 d1 per Japan 908]
height H2 (WIDE) = 4 mm [less than sipe depth of 8 mm per Ohashi]
height H2 (WIDE) = 50% depth H (sipe) [4mm/8mmx100% = 50%]
area (WIDE) ≈ 50% area (WALL) [falling within Japan 908’s range of 30-80%]
thickness Ei (INTERMEDIATE) = 3 mm
[falling within Volk et al’s preferred range of 0.7-3 mm]
H = 8 mm [Ohashi]
W2 = 0.6 mm [Japan 908]
H2 = 4 mm (50% H) [Japan 908, Ohashi]
W1 = 3 mm [Japan 908]
H1 = 4 mm (50% H) [Japan 908, Ohashi]
Ei = 3 mm [Volk et al]
W1 = 3 mm [Japan 908]
Ei3/W1 < 12 mm2
(3 mm)3/3 mm < 12 mm2
9 mm2 < 12 mm2
ANOTHER EXAMPLE: When Volk et al’s tire comprises Japan 908’s sipe as per FIGURE 7-8 and a sipe depth of 8 mm as per Ohashi, then the claimed numerical limitations of claim 1 are satisfied as indicated in the following:
Japan 807 sipe of FIGURES 7-8 and Ohashi’s sipe depth = 8 mm
depth H (cut/sipe) = height H1 + height H2 + height H3 = 8 mm
[sipe depth = 8 mm per Ohashi]
width W3 (UPPER WIDE) = 3 mm [using d2 = 1.5 to 5 times d1 per Japan 908]
height H3 (UPPER WIDE) = 2 mm [less than sipe depth of 8 mm of Ohashi]
height H3 (UPPER WIDE) = 25% depth H (sipe) [2mm/8mmx100% = 25%]
area (UPPER) ≈ 25% area (WALL) [rectangle approximating trapezoid]
width W2 (NARROW MIDDLE) = 0.6 mm
[falling within Japan 908’s range of 0.2 to 0.6 mm]
height H2 (NARROW MIDDLE) = 4 mm [less than sipe depth of 8 mm of Ohashi]
height H2 (NARROW MIDDLE) = 50% depth H (sipe) [4mm/8mmX100% = 50%]
area (NARROW MIDDLE) ≈ 50% area (WALL) [rectangle approximating trapezoid]
width W1 (LOWER WIDE) = 3 mm [using d2 = 1.5 to 5 d1 per Japan 908]
height H1 (LOWER WIDE) = 2 mm [less than sipe depth of 8 mm per Ohashi]
height H1 (LOWER WIDE) = 25% depth H (sipe) [2mm/8mmx100% = 25%]
area (LOWER WIDE) ≈ 25% area (WALL) [rectangle approximating trapezoid]
total area (WIDE) = area (UPPER WIDE) + area (LOWER WIDE)
total area (WIDE) = 25% + 25%
total area (WIDE) = 50% [falling within Japan 908’s range of 30-80%]
thickness Ei (INTERMEDIATE) = 3 mm
[falling within Volk et al’s preferred range of 0.7-3 mm]
H = 8 mm [Ohashi]
W3 = 3 mm [Japan 908]
H3 = 2 mm (25%H) [Japan 908, Ohashi]
W2 = 0.6 mm [Japan 908]
H2 = 4 mm (50%H) [Japan 908, Ohashi]
W1 = 3 mm [Japan 908]
H1 = 2 mm (25%H) [Japan 908, Ohashi]
Ei = 3 mm [Volk et al]
W1 = 3 mm [Japan 908]
Ei3/W1 < 12 mm2
(3 mm)3/3 mm < 12 mm2
9 mm2 < 12 mm2
Therefore, the claimed H1 > 0.2H, H2 > 4 mm, H2 < H - H1 are fairly rendered obvious by (1) Japan 908’s teaching to use the sipe configuration shown in FIGURES 5-6 or the sipe configuration shown in FIGURES 7-8, (2) Japan 908’s teaching that the area of the wide portion of the sipe is 30-80% of the area of the sipe wall and (3) Ohashi’s teaching that 8 mm is a known sipe depth for sipes in blocks of a tread of a pneumatic passenger tire. See above TABLES. It is acknowledged that, since the bottom of Japan 908’s sipe 4 is above the bottom of the lateral grooves 2 [FIGURE ], the bottom of a sipe in Volk et al’s pneumatic tire modified (as explained above) by Japan 908 and Ohashi is above the tread base 6 (intermediate layer) of Volk et al. However, claims 1-7 read on and fail to exclude the bottom of the cut being radially spaced above the intermediate layer. In other words, “the intermediate layer ... having a minimum thickness (Ei) measured between the bottom of the cut and the crown reinforcement” fails to require the bottom of the cut being located at the upper surface of the intermediate layer. This conclusion is consistent with applicant’s FIGURE 2 reproduced below
PNG
media_image1.png
318
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to applicant’s FIGURE 2, it is noted that applicant’s specification describes: “The intermediate layer 3, comprising a rubber material, has a minimum thickness Ei, measured between the bottom 220 of the cut and the crown reinforcement 4.” [paragraph 47, emphasis added]. This description is true even though applicant’s FIGURE 2 illustrates the bottom 220 of the cut being located radially above the upper surface of the intermediate layer 3. The tread base of Volk et al’s pneumatic tire has a thickness of 0.7 to 3 mm (e.g. 3 mm). This value of 3 mm for the thickness of the intermediate layer falls within the claimed range of 2 to 4 mm. When thickness Ei of the tread base is 3 mm (as per Volk et al) and width W1 of the wide portion is 3 mm (as per Japan 908), then Ei3/W1 = 9 mm2 [(3 mm)3/3 mm = 9 mm2]. This value of 9 mm2 for Ei3/W1 falls within the claimed range of less than or equal to 12 mm2.
As to claim 2, the tread base of Volk et al’s pneumatic has a central segment 6a and two lateral segments 6b [FIGURE 1].
As to claims 3 and 5 (H1 < 0.6 H), the applied prior art, as explained above, renders obvious height H1 being 50% height H1. Also, Japan 908 discloses that it is desirable for the height of the wide portion at the bottom of the sipe be 25% depth of sipe [H1 = 0.25H].
As to claims 4 and 6-7, Japan 908 teaches a wide upper portion having a width of, for example 3 mm.
Remarks
4) Applicant's arguments filed 12-1-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no reason why the prior art would have rendered the claimed invention obvious. Examiner disagrees. As explained in the last office action, Japan 908 and Ohashi motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tread of Volk et al’s pneumatic tire such that the tread comprises five rows of blocks [FIGURE 1, Ohashi] and such that each block comprises sipes having a narrow portion and at least one wide portion [Japan 908, FIGURES 5-6 or FIGURES 7-8] to obtain the expected and predictable benefits of securing drainability and preventing abrasion. In other words, Japan 908 and Ohashi provide ample motivation (secure drainability, prevent abrasion) to use a block tread pattern for Volk et al’s PNEUMATIC TIRE for automobile having a known intermediate layer having a known thickness (Volk et al) wherein the blocks comprise sipes having a known sipe configuration (FIGURES 5-6 or FIGURES 7-8 of Japan 908) and a known sipe depth (Ohashi).
Applicant argues that Volk et al does not appear to teach any sipes at all. More properly, Volk et al, Japan 908 and Ohashi are in the same field of endeavor of pneumatic tires and teach the same structure of a tread comprising land portions delimited by grooves. Furthermore, Japan 908 provides ample motivation (secure drainability and prevent partial abrasion) to add the sipes of FIGURES 5-6 or FIGURES 7-8 to the tread of Volk et al’s pneumatic tire. Also, note that Volk et al’s pneumatic tire is for an automobile and Ohashi teaches that a pneumatic tire for a car should have a block pattern tread comprising sipes.
Applicant argues that even if one of ordinary skill in the art would consider adding sipe type cuts to Volk’s tire, there is no teaching or suggestion whatsoever of how a sipe / cut from Japan 908 would be positioned relative to Volk et al’s tread base. This argument is not persuasive. Volk et al shows land portions of the tread being separated by grooves [FIGURE 1] and Japan 908 shows forming sipes in blocks (land portions) delimited by circumferential grooves 1 and lateral grooves 2 such that the bottom of each sipe is located radially above the bottoms of the grooves 1, 2 [FIGURES 2, 4, 5, 7]. As mentioned above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Japan 908’s sipes in Volk et al’s tread to obtain the expected and predictable benefits of securing drainability and preventing partial abrasion. In view of the above noted teachings of Japan 908 and Volk et al, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that Japan 908’s sipes should be formed in Volk et al’s land portions such that the bottoms of the sipes are above the bottoms of the grooves in Volk et al’s tread; the bottoms of the sipes thereby being located radially above the intermediate layer.
Applicant argues that the claimed dimensions Ei, H, H1, H2, W1 and W2 are not identified with similar, or even implies, dimensions in Volk. This argument is not persuasive. Volk et al discloses using a preferred thickness Ei for the intermediate layer. Ohashi discloses 8 mm as being a known sipe depth H. With respect to H1 and H2, annotated copies of Japan 908’s FIGURES 5 and 7 are provided below:
PNG
media_image2.png
222
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of FIGURES 5 and 7 of Japan 908. In the MARKED UP FIGURE, “H” is the depth of the sipe (the cut), “H1” is the height of a lower wide portion, “H2” is the height of a narrow portion and “H3” is the height of an upper wide portion. It is noted that the heights in FIGURES 5 and 7 determine the areas of the narrow and wide portions and that Japan 908 teaches that the area of the wide portion should be 30-80% of the area of the sipe wall [translation]; the area of the narrow portion consequently being 20-70% of the area of the sipe wall since the area of the narrow portion plus the area of the wide portion(s) equals the area of the sipe wall. With respect to W1 and W2, Japan 908 teaches d1 = 0.2 to 0.6 mm [W2 = 0.2 to 0.6 mm] and d2 = 1.5 to 5 times d1 (e.g. d2 = 1 to 3 mm) [W1 = 1.5 to 5 times W2 → W1 = 1 to 3 mm when W2 = 0.6 mm and W1 = 5 times W2]. Thus, the applied prior art provides ample guidance for the claimed dimensions Ei, H, H1, H2, W1 and W2.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion for the ratio between the minimum thickness of the intermediate layer and the width of the wider portion of the cuts given by Ei3/W1 < 12 mm2. This argument is not persuasive. Volk et al teaches
Ei = 3 mm since Volk teaches a preferred thickness Ei of 0.5 to 3 mm for the intermediate layer. Japan 908 teaches W1 = 3 mm since Japan 908 teaches d1 = 0.2 to 0.6 mm [W2 = 0.2 to 0.6 mm] and d2 = 1.5 to 5 times d1 [W1 = 1.5 to 5 times W2]; it being noted that 0.6 mm times 5 = 3 mm. When Ei = 3 mm as per Volk et al and W1 = 3 mm as per Japan 908, then Ei3/W1 = 9 mm2 [(3 mm)3/(3 mm) = 9 mm2]. This value of 9 mm2 falls within the claimed range of less than or equal to 12 mm2.
Applicant argues that “[t]he Office Action then imports a sipe depth D of 8 mm from Ohashi with no motivation provided as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would select that depth for depth H of FIG. 7 of Japan 908.” [page 6 of response filed 12-1-25, emphasis added]. This argument is not persuasive. FIRST: Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Thus, motivation is not the only rational that may support a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 part I (EXAMPLES OF RATIONALES). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 1385 (U.S. 2007) ("There is no necessary inconsistency between the idea underlying the TSM test [the teaching, suggestion, motivation test] and the Graham analysis. But when a court transforms the general principle into a rigid rule that limits the obviousness inquiry, as the Court of Appeals did here, it errs."). SECOND: One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use the known sipe depth of 8 mm disclosed by Ohashi for Japan 908’s sipe since (1) Japan 908 and Ohashi are in the same field of endeavor of a pneumatic tire having a block tread pattern comprising blocks comprising sipes and (2) Ohashi discloses 8 mm as being a known sipe depth for such a tire.
Applicant argues that Volk does not describe any dimensional relationship between the thickness of tread base 6 and a depth of the circumferential grooves of FIG. 1. This argument is not persuasive since (1) Volk et al teaches that the tread base (intermediate layer) preferably has a thickness “Ei” of 0.5 to 3 mm, (2) Japan 908 teaches dimensions W1, H1, W2, H2 and H for a sipe in a block tread pattern of a pneumatic tire, (3) Ohashi discloses 8 mm being a known sipe depth H for a block tread pattern of a pneumatic tire, and (4) claim 1 fails to mention depth of a circumferential groove.
Applicant argues that in Japan 908, no views of an entire width or thickness of the tire or even a plurality of adjacent blocks is shown. This argument is not persuasive since (1) Volk et al discloses a pneumatic tire for automobile having tread cap 5 comprising grooves, tread base 6 (intermediate layer) and crown reinforcement (belt bandage 7 and belt 2) wherein the tread base 6 (intermediate layer) preferably has a thickness of 0.5 to 3 mm [FIGURE 1, paragraphs 28, 31,39] and (2) Japan 908 teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread having a block tread pattern comprising grooves separating blocks comprising sipes wherein the blocks are delimited by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves [FIGURES 1-4, translation].
Applicant argues that Ohashi does not show or address the entire thickness of a tire including an intermediate layer between a tread cap and a crown reinforcement beyond stating that block 1 includes a cap layer 5 and a base rubber layer 6. This argument is not persuasive since (1) Volk et al discloses a pneumatic tire for automobile having tread cap 5 comprising grooves, tread base 6 (intermediate layer) and crown reinforcement (belt bandage 7 and belt 2) wherein the tread base 6 (intermediate layer) preferably has a thickness of 0.5 to 3 mm [FIGURE 1, paragraphs 28, 31,39] and (2) Ohashi teaches a pneumatic tire for a car comprising a tread having a block tread pattern comprising grooves separating blocks comprising sipes wherein the blocks are delimited by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves [FIGURE 1, paragraphs 51, 52].
Applicant argues that Japan 908 and Ohashi are selected to allegedly calculate the claimed ranges with minimal to no motivation as to why one of ordinary skill would combine these references. This argument is not persuasive. Since Japan 908 discloses sipes for a block tread pattern of a pneumatic tire and is silent as to sipe depth in millimeters, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Ohashi for known sipe depth in millimeters for sipes in a block tread pattern of a pneumatic tire; applicant having presented no convincing argument and/or evidence to the contrary.
With respect to Japan 908’s teaching that area of the wide portion 5 is 30 to 80% of area of the wall of the sipe, applicant argues that the criterion of side wall coverage is not discussed anywhere in applicant’s disclosure. This argument is not persuasive since the combination of Japan 908’s teaching that area of the wide portion 5 is 30 to 80% of area of the wall of the sipe and Japan 908’s teaching to use either one lower wide portion and one narrow upper portion [FIGURES 5-6] or a lower wide portion, middle narrow portion and upper wide portion [FIGURES 7-8] determine heights H1 and H2 which are specifically claimed in claim 1. In other words, heights H1 and H2 in claim 1 are a function of the area of the wide portion of the sipe.
With respect to minimum thickness Ei, applicant states “[e]ven if the claims ‘fail to exclude the bottom of the cut being radially spaced above the intermediate layer’, it doesn’t matter because that is not what is claimed.” [page 7 of response filed 12-1-25]. In response, examiner maintains that claims 1-7 read on and fail to exclude the bottom of the cut being radially spaced above the intermediate layer. In other words, “the intermediate layer ... having a minimum thickness (Ei) measured between the bottom of the cut and the crown reinforcement” fails to require the bottom of the cut being located at the upper surface of the intermediate layer. This conclusion is consistent with applicant’s FIGURE 2 reproduced below
PNG
media_image1.png
318
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to applicant’s FIGURE 2, it is noted that applicant’s specification describes: “The intermediate layer 3, comprising a rubber material, has a minimum thickness Ei, measured between the bottom 220 of the cut and the crown reinforcement 4.” [paragraph 47, emphasis added]. This description is true even though applicant’s FIGURE 2 illustrates the bottom 220 of the cut being located radially above the upper surface of the intermediate layer 3. With respect to Ei3/W1 < 12 mm2, Volk et al
teaches Ei = 3 mm and Japan 908 teach W1 = 3 mm; Ei3/W1 thereby being 9 mm2
[(3 mm)3/3mm = 9 mm2]. This value of 9 mm2 falls within the claimed range of less than or equal to 12 mm2.
5) No claim is allowed.
6) 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.
7) 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 20, 2026