DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: "121a" and "121b" as seen in Fig. 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 8, 12, 14 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.
Claims 8 and 19 recite the limitation “from full radii to 2.5 mm” in line 3. It is unclear what the term “full radii” means in the context of claims 8 and 19, making the scope of the claimed radius of the connection points unclear. The drawings and the specification also fail to provide insight into the meaning of the term “full radii.” For examination purposes, “from full radii to 2.5 mm” in claims 8 and 19 will be assumed to include values either greater than 0 mm to 2.5 mm or greater than or equal to 2.5 mm. However, appropriate correction and clarification is required in order to overcome this indefiniteness rejection.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “the upper end of the second protrusion” in line 2 and “the upper end of the third protrusion” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Thus, it is unclear what these limitations are referring to. For examination purposes, “the upper end” in lines 2 and 4-5 will be read as “an upper end.”
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the upper end” and “the bottom portion” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Thus, it is unclear what these limitations are referring to. For examination purposes, “the upper end” and “the bottom portion” in lines 2-3 will be read as “an upper end” and “a bottom portion,” respectively.
Claim 15 is also rejected due to its dependence upon rejected claim 14.
Appropriate correction is required in order to overcome the indefiniteness rejections. Suggested corrections are bolded and underlined for emphasis only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim (KR 100462208 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 11, Lim discloses a tire (title), comprising: a groove portion (2) that is formed to extend circumferentially along a circumference of a tire tread (1) of the tire (see Figs. 1 and 2; [10]), the groove portion (2) comprising a bottom surface and first and second side surfaces (see Modified Figure 1 below); and a plurality of knurled portions (3) that are formed on the bottom and side surfaces of the groove portion (2) (see Figs. 1 and 2; [10]), wherein at least one of the knurled portions (3) comprises: a first protrusion that is formed on the groove bottom surface and extends lengthwise in a width direction of the groove portion (2) and is inclined with respect to a horizontal direction passing through a central axis of the tire (see Modified Figure 2 below), the first protrusion including first and second end portions corresponding to the first and second side surfaces, respectively (see Modified Figure 2 below); a second protrusion that is formed to extend in a height direction of the first side surface of the groove portion (2) and that extends from the first end portion of the first protrusion (see Modified Figure 2 below); and a third protrusion that is formed to extend in a height direction of the second side surface of the groove portion (2) and that extends from the second end portion of the first groove portion (see Modified Figure 2 below), wherein an interval between the second protrusions formed on the first side surface of the groove portion (2) and an interval between the third protrusions formed on the second side surface of the groove portion (2) are repeatedly alternately narrowed and then widened.
PNG
media_image1.png
398
547
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Lim
PNG
media_image2.png
641
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Lim
Regarding claim 12, Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 11. Lim further discloses that a bottom portion of the second protrusion extends from the first protrusion, and an upper end of the second protrusion is separated from the second protrusion of a first adjacent knurled portion (3) (see Modified Figure 2 above); and wherein a bottom portion of the third protrusion extends from the first protrusion, and an upper end of the third protrusion is separated from the third protrusion of a second adjacent knurled portion (3) (see Modified Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 13, Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 11. Lim further discloses that for adjacent knurled portions (3), where the interval separating adjacent second protrusions is narrowed the interval separating respective adjacent third protrusions is widened, and where the interval separating adjacent second protrusions is widened the interval separating respective adjacent third protrusions is narrowed (see Modified Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 20, Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 11. Lim further discloses that a shape formed by two adjacent knurled portions (3) is V-shaped (see Modified Figure 2 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 100462208 with English Machine Translation) in view of Hoke (US 3,727,661) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses a tire (title), comprising: a groove portion (2) that is formed to extend circumferentially along a circumference of a tire tread (1) of the tire (see Figs. 1 and 2; [10]), the groove portion (2) comprising a bottom surface and first and second side surfaces (see Modified Figure 1 above), wherein each of the first and second side surfaces has a height mid-point located radially outward in a radial height direction from the groove bottom surface on each side surface halfway between a radial height of the groove bottom surface and a surface of the tire tread (1) (see Modified Figure 1 above); and a plurality of knurled portions (3) that are formed on the bottom and side surfaces of the groove portion (2) (see Figs. 1 and 2; [10]), wherein at least one of the knurled portions (3) comprises: a first protrusion that is formed on the groove bottom surface and extends lengthwise in a width direction of the groove portion (2) and is inclined with respect to a horizontal direction passing through a central axis of the tire (see Modified Figure 2 above), the first protrusion including first and second end portions corresponding to the first and second side surfaces, respectively (see Modified Figure 2 above); a second protrusion that is formed to extend in a height direction of the first side surface of the groove portion (2) and that extends from the first end portion of the first protrusion to an upper end of the second protrusion (see Modified Figure 2 above); and a third protrusion that is formed to extend in a height direction of the second side surface of the groove portion (2) and that extends from the second end portion of the first groove portion to an upper end of the third protrusion (see Modified Figure 2 above); wherein the upper end of the second protrusion extends beyond the height mid-point of the first side surface and the upper end of the third protrusion extends beyond the height mid-point of the second side surface (see Modified Figures 1 and 2 above), wherein each of the second and third protrusions has an angle from the surface of the tread (1) that is not perpendicular to the surface of the tread (1) (see Modified Figure 1 above), and wherein the plurality of knurled portions (3) are formed to extend in a zigzag manner circumferentially around the tire tread (1) along the groove portion (2) (see Fig. 2; [10]). Lim fails to explicitly disclose, however that a protrusion height of each of the second protrusion and the third protrusion is lower at the upper end of each of the second and third protrusions than at a bottom portion of each of the second and third protrusions, respectively, where each of the second and third protrusions extends from the first protrusion.
However, this configuration is known in the art. For instance, Hoke teaches a similar tire (title) comprising: a groove portion (16) formed to extend circumferentially along a circumference of a tread (10), and a plurality of knurled portions (18b) formed on the groove portion (see Figs. 1 and 5), wherein each of the knurled portions comprises: a first protrusion that is formed on the groove bottom surface, a second protrusion that is formed on a first side surface of the groove portion (16) and that extends from the first protrusion, and a third protrusion that is formed on a second side surface of the groove portion (16) and that extends from the first protrusion (see Modified Figure 5 below). Hoke further teaches that a protrusion height of each of the second protrusion and the third protrusion is lower at the upper end of each of the second and third protrusions than at a bottom portion of each of the second and third protrusions, respectively, where each of the second and third protrusions extends from the first protrusion (see Modified Figure 5 below; Col. 4, line 58-Col. 5, line 16). Hoke further teaches that configuring the knurled portions (18b) in this way can help to provide support for the side walls of the groove portion (16) and prevent stones from damaging the groove bottom (Col. 4, line 58-Col. 5, line 16).
PNG
media_image3.png
282
427
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 5, Hoke
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second and third protrusions disclosed by Lim to have lower heights at their upper ends, as taught by Hoke, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would provide support for the sidewalls of the groove portion and further prevent stones from damaging the groove bottom.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Lim further discloses that the upper end of the second protrusion is separated from the second protrusion of a first adjacent knurled portion (Lim: 3), and wherein the upper end of the third protrusion is separated from the third protrusion of a second adjacent knurled portion (Lim: 3) (see Modified Figure 2 above).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Hoke further teaches that the protrusion height of each of the second and third protrusions is lowest at the respective upper end of each of the second and third protrusions, wherein respective protrusion heights of the second protrusion and the third protrusion decrease gradually from the respective bottom portions toward the respective upper ends thereof (see Modified Figure 5 above; Col. 4, line 58-Col. 5, line 16). Therefore, since modified Lim includes the teachings from Hoke regarding the protrusions heights of the second and third protrusions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Lim to have satisfied all of the limitations in claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 5, modified Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Hoke further teaches that respective protrusion heights of the second protrusion and the third protrusion decrease gradually from the respective bottom portions toward respective upper ends thereof to a height of zero (see Modified Figure 5 above; Col. 4, line 58-Col. 5, line 16). Thus, Hoke necessarily teaches that a protrusion height of the knurled portions (Hoke: 18b) is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.8 mm at least somewhere in the decreasing height sections of the second and third protrusions before the height reaches zero. Therefore, since modified Lim includes the teachings from Hoke regarding the protrusions heights of the second and third protrusions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Lim to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Lim further discloses that a width of the knurled portions (Lim: 3) is 0.5 to 5 mm (Lim: [11]), encompassing the claimed range of 0.6 mm to 1.2 mm. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Lim to have satisfied the claimed range based on the encompassing range disclosed by modified Lim.
Regarding claim 9, modified Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Lim further discloses that a shape formed by two adjacent knurled portions (Lim: 3) is V-shaped (see Modified Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Modified Lim further discloses that the plurality of knurled portions (Lim: 3) comprise adjacent knurled portions (Lim: 3) that are separate from each other (Lim: see Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 11. Lim fails to disclose, however, that a protrusion height of each of the second and third protrusions is lower at an upper end of each of the second and third protrusions than at a bottom of each of the second and third protrusions, respectively, wherein respective protrusion heights of the second protrusion and the third protrusion decrease gradually from the respective bottom portions toward the upper ends thereof.
However, this configuration is known in the art. For instance, Hoke teaches a similar tire (title) comprising: a groove portion (16) formed to extend circumferentially along a circumference of a tread (10), and a plurality of knurled portions (18b) formed on the groove portion (see Figs. 1 and 5), wherein each of the knurled portions comprises: a first protrusion that is formed on the groove bottom surface, a second protrusion that is formed on a first side surface of the groove portion (16) and that extends from the first protrusion, and a third protrusion that is formed on a second side surface of the groove portion (16) and that extends from the first protrusion (see Modified Figure 5 above). Hoke further teaches that a protrusion height of each of the second protrusion and the third protrusion is lower at the upper end of each of the second and third protrusions than at a bottom portion of each of the second and third protrusions, respectively, wherein respective protrusion heights of the second protrusion and the third protrusion decrease gradually from the respective bottom portions toward the upper ends thereof (see Modified Figure 5 above; Col. 4, line 58-Col. 5, line 16). Hoke further teaches that configuring the knurled portions (18b) in this way can help to provide support for the side walls of the groove portion (16) and prevent stones from damaging the groove bottom (Col. 4, line 58-Col. 5, line 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second and third protrusions disclosed by Lim to have gradually decreasing heights toward their upper ends, as taught by Hoke, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would provide support for the sidewalls of the groove portion and further prevent stones from damaging the groove bottom.
Regarding claim 16, modified Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 15. Hoke further teaches that respective protrusion heights of the second protrusion and the third protrusion decrease gradually from the respective bottom portions toward respective upper ends thereof to a height of zero (see Modified Figure 5 above; Col. 4, line 58-Col. 5, line 16). Thus, Hoke necessarily teaches that a protrusion height of the knurled portions (Hoke: 18b) is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.8 mm at least somewhere in the decreasing height sections of the second and third protrusions before the height reaches zero. Therefore, since modified Lim includes the teachings from Hoke regarding the protrusions heights of the second and third protrusions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Lim to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 11. Lim further discloses that a width of the knurled portions (3) is 0.5 to 5 mm ([11]), encompassing the claimed range of 0.6 mm to 1.2 mm. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Lim to have satisfied the claimed range based on the encompassing range disclosed by Lim.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 100462208 with English Machine Translation) in view of Lundgren et al. (US 2017/0246914) (Lundgren) (of record).
Regarding claim 18, Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 11. Lim fails to explicitly disclose, however, that a pitch interval of the knurled portions (3) is from 10 mm to 30 mm.
However, this configuration is known in the art. For instance, Lundgren teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a groove portion (402) and a plurality of knurled portions (408) which are formed on bottom (406) and a side surface (404) of the groove portion (402) (see Fig. 4A; [0037]). Lundgren further teaches that a pitch interval (P) of the knurled portions (408) is from 8.0 mm and 12.0 mm, with a specific example of 11.6 mm ([0037]), suggesting the claimed range of 10 mm to 30 mm. Lundgren further teaches that configuring the knurled portions (408) in this way can help improve the traction of the tire, specifically on snow or mud ([0037]; abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the pitch interval of the knurled portions disclosed by Lim to fall within the claimed range, as taught by Lundgren, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help improve the traction of the tire, specifically on snow or mud.
Regarding claim 19, Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 11. Lim fails to explicitly disclose, however, that a radius of a connection portion between the first protrusion and the second protrusion and a radius of a connection portion between the first protrusion and the third protrusion are from full radii to 2.5 mm.
However, this configuration is known in the art. For instance, Lundgren teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a groove portion (402) and a plurality of knurled portions (408) which are formed on bottom (406) and a side surface (404) of the groove portion (402) (see Fig. 4A; [0037]). Lundgren further teaches that the knurled portion (408) comprises a first protrusion which is formed on the bottom surface (406) of the groove portion and extends in a width direction of the groove portion (402) (see Modified Figure 4A below), and a second protrusion which is formed to extend in a height direction of one side of the groove portion (402) and extends from one side of the first protrusion (see Modified Figure 4A below). Lundgren further teaches that a connection portion (410) between the first portion and the second protrusion has a radius (R) between 1.0 mm and 3.0 mm ([0029]), overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Lundgren further teaches that this configuration can help improve the snow and mud traction of the tire ([0028]-[0029], abstract).
PNG
media_image4.png
226
428
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4A, Lundgren
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the connection portions between the first protrusion and the second and third protrusions disclosed by Lim to have radii within the claimed range, as taught by Lundgren, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so could help improve the snow and mud traction of the tire.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 100462208 with English Machine Translation) in view of Hoke (US 3,727,661) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lundgren et al. (US 2017/0246914) (Lundgren) (of record).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Lim fails to explicitly disclose, however, that a pitch interval of the knurled portions (Lim: 3) is from 10 mm to 30 mm.
However, this configuration is known in the art. For instance, Lundgren teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a groove portion (402) and a plurality of knurled portions (408) which are formed on bottom (406) and a side surface (404) of the groove portion (402) (see Fig. 4A; [0037]). Lundgren further teaches that a pitch interval (P) of the knurled portions (408) is from 8.0 mm and 12.0 mm, with a specific example of 11.6 mm ([0037]), suggesting the claimed range of 10 mm to 30 mm. Lundgren further teaches that configuring the knurled portions (408) in this way can help improve the traction of the tire, specifically on snow or mud ([0037]; abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the pitch interval of the knurled portions disclosed by modified Lim to fall within the claimed range, as taught by Lundgren, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help improve the traction of the tire, specifically on snow or mud.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Lim fails to explicitly disclose, however, that a radius of a connection portion between the first protrusion and the second protrusion and a radius of a connection portion between the first protrusion and the third protrusion are from full radii to 2.5 mm.
However, this configuration is known in the art. For instance, Lundgren teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a groove portion (402) and a plurality of knurled portions (408) which are formed on bottom (406) and a side surface (404) of the groove portion (402) (see Fig. 4A; [0037]). Lundgren further teaches that the knurled portion (408) comprises a first protrusion which is formed on the bottom surface (406) of the groove portion and extends in a width direction of the groove portion (402) (see Modified Figure 4A above), and a second protrusion which is formed to extend in a height direction of one side of the groove portion (402) and extends from one side of the first protrusion (see Modified Figure 4A above). Lundgren further teaches that a connection portion (410) between the first portion and the second protrusion has a radius (R) between 1.0 mm and 3.0 mm ([0029]), overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Lundgren further teaches that this configuration can help improve the snow and mud traction of the tire ([0028]-[0029], abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the connection portions between the first protrusion and the second and third protrusions disclosed by modified Lim to have radii within the claimed range, as taught by Lundgren, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so could help improve the snow and mud traction of the tire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 Smith 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749