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) Claims 46-53 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 46 lines 7-8, “said second linear portion or said second sipe” should be
--said second linear portion of said second sipe--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Asano
5) Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asano (US 5,591,280).
Asano discloses a pneumatic tire (passenger size 165SR13) having a tread comprising grooves delimiting blocks having sipes. The tread has a ground contacting width WS. The tread includes shoulder blocks wherein each shoulder block has a first edge defined by a ground contact edge of the ground contacting width WS and a second edge defined by a circumferential groove. FIGURE 2 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
694
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Each sipe comprises a first linear portion, a single wave portion and a second linear portion. An annotated partial copy of Asano’s FIGURE 2 showing one of the left shoulder blocks is provided below:
PNG
media_image2.png
598
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, the markings were added to facilitate discussion of Asano’s FIGURE 2. In the MARKED UP FIGURE, L1 is the length of the first linear portion, L2 is the length of the second linear portion, W is the width of the shoulder block from a first edge to a second edge of the shoulder block, θ1 is the angle of a first segment of the single wave portion and θ2 is the angle of a second segment (middle segment) of the single wave portion. Note that an angle θ3 of a third segment of the single wave portion is equal to angle θ1 of the first segment since the first and third segments of the single wave portion are parallel to each other. In the MARKED UP FIGURE:
angle θ1 (first segment) is about 33 degrees
with respect to a longitudinal development direction of the sipe,
angle θ2 (second segment) is about 40 degrees
with respect to a longitudinal development direction of the sipe,
length L1 is about 10% of block width W,
length L2 is about 38% of block width W,
length L2 is about 380% length L1.
Thus, θ2 > θ1 and θ2 > θ3. 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). The tire has improved uneven wear resistance and durability without sacrificing on snow performance.
As to claims 28 and 29, the claimed tire is anticipated by Asano’s tire.
6) Claims 28-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano (US 5,591,280) in view of Japan 426 (JP 2002-046426).
Asano is considered to anticipate claims 29 and 30. IN ANY EVENT: As to claims 28-39, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Asano’s pneumatic tire such that:
the tread comprises a plurality of blocks and at least one first sipe formed on each block of said plurality of blocks, said first sipe being open at said tread surface to define a first longitudinal development direction of said first sipe, said first sipe comprising: a first linear portion which extends along said first longitudinal direction, a single-wave portion which extends in continuation of said first linear portion, and a second linear portion which extends in continuation of said single-wave portion, wherein said first linear portion and said second linear portion are rectilinear or curvilinear with a minimum radius of curvature not less than 20 mm, wherein said single-wave portion comprises: a first segment inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction at a first segment angle and which extends from said first linear portion to a first peak, a second segment inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction at a second segment angle and which extends from said first peak to a second peak, the second peak defined at an opposite side to said first peak with respect to said first longitudinal direction and a third segment inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction at a third segment angle and which extends from said second peak to said second linear portion, wherein said second segment angle is greater than said first segment angle and said third segment angle [claim 28],
said first segment angle and said third segment angle are each
between 20° and 45° [claim 29],
said second segment angle is between 60° and 90° [claim 30],
said first segment and said third segment of said single-wave portion are substantially parallel [claim 31],
a length of said first segment of said single-wave portion is substantially identical to a length of said third segment of said single-wave portion [claim 32],
a distance of said first peak from said first longitudinal direction is substantially identical to a distance of said second peak from said first longitudinal direction [claim 33],
a length of said second linear portion is greater by at least 50% than a length of said first linear portion [claim 34],
the length of said second linear portion is greater by at least 100% than the length of said first linear portion [claim 35],
the length of said second linear portion is greater by at least 200% than the length of said first linear portion [claim 36],
said first longitudinal development direction of the first sipe intersects with a first edge and a second edge of a block of said plurality of blocks, said first linear portion extending towards said first edge and said second linear portion extending towards said second edge, and wherein a distance of said single-wave portion from said first edge measured along said first longitudinal direction is between 5% and 40% of a distance between said first edge and said second edge measured along said first longitudinal direction [claim 37],
a distance of said single-wave portion from said second edge measured along said first longitudinal direction is at least double the distance of said single-wave portion from said first edge measured along said first longitudinal direction
[claim 38],
said first linear portion is open at said first edge of said block [claim 39]
since (1) Asano discloses a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising shoulder blocks having sipes wherein each sipe comprises a first linear portion, a single-wave portion (single zigzag portion) and a second linear portion [FIGURE 2], (2) Asano illustrates (a) the middle segment (second segment) of the zigzag portion being inclined at an angle (θ2) with respect to a centerline of the sipe greater than an angle (θ1, θ3) with respect to the centerline of the sipe at which each of the outer segments (first segment, third segment) of the zigzag sipe is inclined [FIGURE 2] and (b) Asano illustrates the length (L1) of the first linear portion being about 10% of the block width (W) and the length (L2) of the second linear portion being about 38% of the block width (length L1 being longer than length L2) [FIGURE 2] and (3) Japan 426 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising blocks having zigzag sipes such that the middle segment of the zigzag sipe is inclined at an angle α1 = 0 to 45 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction (angle = 45 to 90 degrees with respect to axial direction / sipe center line) and the outer segments of the zigzag sipe are inclined at an angle α2 = 60 to 90 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction (angle = 0 to 30 degrees with respect to axial direction / sipe centerline) to obtain large edge component in lateral direction and large edge component in front-rear direction making abrasion at bent portion of sipe less likely [FIGURES 1-4, especially FIGURE 2, machine translation]. Thus, Japan 426 suggests providing the single wave portions of Asano’s sipes with the claimed angles.
As to claims 28-30, Japan 426 suggest using second segment angle = 45 to 90 degrees (covering claimed range of 60-90 degrees in claim 30) and first, third segment angle = 0-30 degrees (overlapping claimed range of 20-45 degrees in claim 29).
As to claims 31-33, see first, second and third segments of single zigzag portion of Asano’s sipe.
As to claims 34-38, Asano shows providing the shoulder sipe such that the axially outer linear portion has a shorter length L1 than a length L2 the axially inner linear portion [FIGURE 2].
As to claim 39, Asano teaches that the shoulder sipe is both end open
[FIGURE 2].
7) Claims 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano (US 5,591,280) in view of Japan 426 (JP 2002-046426) as applied above and further view of Katayama (US 6,601,623).
As to claims 40-45, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Asano’s pneumatic tire (passenger size 165SR13) having a tread comprising blocks having sipes such that
the length of said first linear portion is between 2 and 5 mm [claim 40],
a depth of said first sipe in a region of said first linear portion is less than a depth of said first sipe in a region of said single-wave portion [claim 41],
said second linear portion is open at said second edge of said block [clam 42],
the length of said second linear portion is between 4 and 25 mm [claim 43],
said second linear portion is substantially aligned with said first linear portion along said first longitudinal direction [claim 44],
said first sipe comprises only one single-wave portion [claim 45]
since Katayama teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 185/70R14) having a tread comprising blocks having sipes such that the blocks have a width = 20 mm and a length = 30 mm [FIGURE 2, Test Example 4].
As to claims 40 and 43, the claimed lengths would have been obvious in view of Katayama’s disclosure of a known block width of 20 mm [paragraph 71] and Asano’s teaching to provide shoulder blocks with sipes having a short outer linear portion at the tread end side and a long outer linear portion at the tread equatorial plane side [FIGURE 2]. See MPEP 2143 part 1 EXAMPLES OF RATIONALES.
As to claim 41, note Asano’s teaching to change depth of the sipe [FIGURE 1].
As to claim 42, the shoulder sipes are both end open [FIGURE 2].
As to claim 44, the linear portions of the sipes are substantially aligned with each other [FIGURE 2].
As to claim 45, the shoulder sipe has only one single wave portion [FIGURE 2].
Taniguchi
8) Claims 28-39 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US 2020/0262247) in view of Japan 426 (JP 2002-046426) and optionally Asano (US 5,591,280).
Taniguchi discloses a pneumatic passenger tire having a tread comprising blocks separated by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves. The blocks comprise center blocks, mediate blocks and shoulder blocks [FIGURE 1, machine translation]. At least one of the center blocks, mediate blocks and shoulder blocks (e.g. all blocks) comprise sipes [paragraph 65]. Taniguchi’s FIGURES 2, 3 and 4B are reproduced below:
PNG
media_image3.png
662
834
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to FIGURE 2, the block comprises sipes having two single wave portions comprising a first linear portion, a first single wave portion, a second linear portion, a second single wave portion and a third linear portion. As to FIGURE 4B, the block comprises alternating sipes #1 and sipes #2 wherein sipes #1 comprise a short left first linear portion, only a single undulating portion and a long right linear portion and sipes #2 comprise a long left first linear portion, only a single undulating portion and a short right linear portion. Taniguchi is silent as to the middle segment of the wave portion being inclined at a greater angle.
As to claims 28-39 and 54, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Taniguchi’s pneumatic tire such that:
the tread comprises a plurality of blocks and at least one first sipe formed on each block of said plurality of blocks, said first sipe being open at said tread surface to define a first longitudinal development direction of said first sipe, said first sipe comprising: a first linear portion which extends along said first longitudinal direction, a single-wave portion which extends in continuation of said first linear portion, and a second linear portion which extends in continuation of said single-wave portion, wherein said first linear portion and said second linear portion are rectilinear or curvilinear with a minimum radius of curvature not less than 20 mm, wherein said single-wave portion comprises: a first segment inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction at a first segment angle and which extends from said first linear portion to a first peak, a second segment inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction at a second segment angle and which extends from said first peak to a second peak, the second peak defined at an opposite side to said first peak with respect to said first longitudinal direction and a third segment inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction at a third segment angle and which extends from said second peak to said second linear portion, wherein said second segment angle is greater than said first segment angle and said third segment angle [claim 28],
said first segment angle and said third segment angle are each
between 20° and 45° [claim 29],
said second segment angle is between 60° and 90° [claim 30],
said first segment and said third segment of said single-wave portion are substantially parallel [claim 31],
a length of said first segment of said single-wave portion is substantially identical to a length of said third segment of said single-wave portion [claim 32],
a distance of said first peak from said first longitudinal direction is substantially identical to a distance of said second peak from said first longitudinal direction [claim 33],
a length of said second linear portion is greater by at least 50% than a length of said first linear portion [claim 34],
the length of said second linear portion is greater by at least 100% than the length of said first linear portion [claim 35],
the length of said second linear portion is greater by at least 200% than the length of said first linear portion [claim 36],
said first longitudinal development direction of the first sipe intersects with a first edge and a second edge of a block of said plurality of blocks, said first linear portion extending towards said first edge and said second linear portion extending towards said second edge, and wherein a distance of said single-wave portion from said first edge measured along said first longitudinal direction is between 5% and 40% of a distance between said first edge and said second edge measured along said first longitudinal direction [claim 37],
a distance of said single-wave portion from said second edge measured along said first longitudinal direction is at least double the distance of said single-wave portion from said first edge measured along said first longitudinal direction
[claim 38],
said first linear portion is open at said first edge of said block [claim 39]
shoulder blocks are formed on said tread band, the shoulder blocks partially delimited by an axial end of said tread band, and wherein each sipe which is formed on said shoulder blocks is one of said first sipes having two single-wave portions, the two single-wave portions being spaced apart from each other by said second linear portion [claim 54].
since (1) Taniguchi teaches discloses a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising blocks having sipes wherein each sipe comprises a first linear portion, a single undulating-wave portion and a second linear portion [FIGURES 2, 4B], (2) Taniguchi teaches providing the single undulating wave portion as a single wave portion [FIGURE 2] and optionally Asano teaches providing sipes in blocks of a tread of a pneumatic tire (passenger size 165SR13) such that each sipe comprise a first linear portion, only a single wave portion and a second linear portion [FIGURE 2], and (3) Japan 426 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising blocks having zigzag sipes such that the middle segment of the zigzag sipe is inclined at an angle α1 = 0 to 45 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction (angle = 45 to 90 degrees with respect to axial direction / sipe center line) and the outer segments of the zigzag sipe are inclined at an angle α2 = 60 to 90 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction (angle = 0 to 30 degrees with respect to axial direction / sipe centerline) to obtain large edge component in lateral direction and large edge component in front-rear direction making abrasion at bent portion of sipe less likely [FIGURES 1-4, especially FIGURE 2, machine translation]. AS TO CLAIMS 28 and 54, Japan 426 suggests providing the single wave portions of Taniguchi’s FIGURE 2 SIPES with the claimed angles. Claim 28 reads on and fails to exclude first sipes have two single wave portions. Indeed, claim 54 (dependent on claim 28) requires first sipes having two single wave portions. As to the blocks in claim 54 being shoulder blocks, Taniguchi teaches that all of the blocks including the shoulder blocks may have the sipes [paragraph 65]. ALTERNARTIVELY AS TO CLAIM 28: Taniguchi discloses sipes #1 and sipes #2 [FIGURE 4B] each having a first linear portion, a single undulating portion and a second linear portion. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to provide the sipes #1 and sipes #2 of FIGURE 4B such that the single undulating portion is a single wave portion since Taniguchi teaches that an undulating portion may be a single wave portion [FIGURE 2] and optionally Asano teaches providing a sipe comprising a first linear portion, a single undulating portion and a second linear portion such that the single undulating portion is a single wave portion [FIGURE 2]. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide Taniguchi’s FIGURE 4B embodiment such that each of sipes #1 and sipes #2 comprise a first linear portion, only a single wave portion and a second linear portion. Furthermore, Japan 426 suggests providing Taniguchi’s FIGURE 4B SIPES modified to have only single wave portion with the claimed angles.
As to claims 28-30, Japan 426 suggest using second segment angle = 45 to 90 degrees (covering claimed range of 60-90 degrees in claim 30) and first, third segment angle = 0-30 degrees (overlapping claimed range of 20-45 degrees in claim 29).
As to claims 31-33, Taniguchi and the optional Asano teach first, second and third segments of a single wave portion.
As to claims 34-38, Taniguchi shows providing FIGURE 2 SIPES or FIGURE 4B SIPES such that first linear portion has a shorter length L1 and the second linear portion has a longer length L2 [FIGURE 2].
As to claim 39, Taniguchi teaches that sipes are both end open sipes
[FIGURES 1-2].
9) Claims 40-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US 2020/0262247) in view of Japan 426 (JP 2002-046426) and optionally Asano (US 5,591,280) as applied above and further in view of Katayama (US 6,601,623).
As to claims 40-45, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Taniguchi pneumatic passenger tire having a tread comprising blocks having sipes such that
the length of said first linear portion is between 2 and 5 mm [claim 40],
a depth of said first sipe in a region of said first linear portion is less than a depth of said first sipe in a region of said single-wave portion [claim 41],
said second linear portion is open at said second edge of said block [clam 42],
the length of said second linear portion is between 4 and 25 mm [claim 43],
said second linear portion is substantially aligned with said first linear portion along said first longitudinal direction [claim 44],
said first sipe comprises only one single-wave portion [claim 45]
since Katayama teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 185/70R14) having a tread comprising blocks having sipes such that the blocks have a width = 20 mm and a length = 30 mm [FIGURE 2, Test Example 4].
As to claims 40 and 43, the claimed lengths would have been obvious in view of Katayama’s disclosure of a known block width of 20 mm [paragraph 71] and Taniguchi’s teaching to provide blocks with sipes having shorter first linear portion and longer second linear portion [FIGURE 2 or 4B]. See MPEP 2143 part 1 EXAMPLES OF RATIONALES.
As to claim 41, note Taniguchi’s teaching to provide the wave portion with a deeper depth [FIGURE 3].
As to claim 42, Taniguchi teaches both end open sipes [FIGURE 2 or 4B].
As to claim 44, the linear portions of the sipes are substantially aligned with each other [FIGURE 2 or 4B].
As to claim 45, note above comments regarding using only one single wave portion [FIGURE 2 or modified FIGURE 4B].
As to claims 46-53, note sipes #1 and sipes #2 of Taniguchi’s FIGURE 4B embodiment modified, as explained above, such that each undulating portion is a only single wave portion having segments inclined as claimed. As to claims 46 and 47, the claimed first sipes read on sipes #1 and the claimed second sipes read on sipes #2. As to claims 48 and 49, sipes #1 and sipes #2 are both end open and substantially parallel to each other. In claim 58, “transversely offset” and “offset in a same transverse direction” fails to require sipe structure different than that suggested by the applied prior art. As to claims 51-53, Taniguchi teaches using four sipes in a central block [FIGURE 1, 4B, paragraph 65].
Remarks
10) The remaining references are of interest.
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
February 21, 2026