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. 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.
3) Claims 5, 7-8 and 10-12 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.
In claim 5 (dependent on claim 4), there is no antecedent basis for “the two recesses” and, as such, the scope of claim 5 is ambiguous. It is noted that claim 4 describes “a recess including a V-shaped edge” instead of “two recesses”.
In claim 7, there is no antecedent basis for “the two shallow grooves” and there is no antecedent basis for “the one shallow groove” and, as such, the scope of claim 7 is ambiguous.
Claim 8 (dependent on claim 7) ambiguously refers to “the shallow groove” [singular]. Claim 7 describes “the two shallow grooves are disposed in each of the plurality of first crown blocks”. In claim 8, it is unclear if (1) one of the two shallow grooves [singular shallow groove] is connected to the recess [singular], (2) the two shallow grooves [plural] are connected to the recess [singular] or (3) something else is required.
In claim 10 last line, the description of “normal to the tread” is ambiguous.
In claim 10 last line, it is suggested to change “normal to the tread” to --normal to the tread surface--.
In claim 11 last line, the description of “normal to the tread” is ambiguous.
In claim 11 last line, it is suggested to change “normal to the tread” to --normal to the tread surface--.
4) 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.
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, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China 171 (CN 109050171).
China 171 discloses a cross country tire having a tread comprising blocks [FIGURE 1, machine translation]. An annotated copy of FIGURE 1 is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
738
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of China 171’s FIGURE 1. In the MARKED UP FIGURE, “A” is a wide first crown block, “B” is a long second crown block, “X is a first shoulder block having outer edge “E1”, “Y” is a second shoulder block having outer edge “E2”, “θ” is angle defined by V-shaped edge of first crown block, “α” is angle of first inclined portion of inner block edge of second crown block with respect to circumferential direction, “β” is angle of second inclined portion of inner block edge of second crown block with respect to circumferential direction. FIGURE 1 illustrates:
length L1 wide 1st crown block A = about 89% width W1 wide 1st crown block A
[L1 = about 89% W1],
length L2 long 2nd crown block B = about 133% width W2 long 2nd crown block B
[L2 = about 133% W2],
axial length W3 shoulder block X = about 37% tread width TW
[W3 = about 37% TW],
angle θ (V-shaped edge of first crown block) = about 125 degrees,
angle α (first inclined portion of inner block edge of second crown block)
= about 20 degrees with respect to circumferential direction,
angle β (second inclined portion of inner block edge of second crown block)
= about 65 degrees with respect to circumferential direction.
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). China 171 teaches that the tire has improved traction and grip off road [machine translation].
As to claim 1, the claimed tire is anticipated by China 171’s tire. The claimed first crown blocks read on blocks 2 (blocks A in MARKED UP FIGURE). The claimed second crown blocks read on blocks 1 (blocks B in MARKED UP FIGURE). It is noted that China 171’s FIGURE 1 illustrates L1 < W1 (for wide first crown blocks) and L2 > W2 (for long second crown blocks).
As to claim 13, note shoulder blocks 5, 6 (blocks X, Y in MARKED UP FIGURE); one of ordinary skill in the art readily appreciating that blocks X have edge E1 and blocks Y have edge E2.
As to claim 15, FIGURE 1 of China 171 illustrates lateral blocks edges of the shoulder blocks 5, 6 (blocks X, Y) in MARKED UP FIGURE) having an angle of 40 degrees or less relative to the tire axial direction.
As to claim 17, China 171’s FIGURE 1 tread pattern inherently has a land ratio in the range of 40 to 60%.
7) Claims 1-3 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China 171 (CN 109050171) and optionally in view of Nakagawa (US 6,102,093), Kageyama et al (US 2017/0057295) and/or Goergen et al (US 5,085,259).
China 171 is considered to anticipate claim 1. IN ANY EVENT: As to claims 1-3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide China 171’s tire such that:
each of the plurality of first crown blocks has a laterally elongated tread surface in which a maximum length in the tire circumferential direction is less than a maximum width in the tire axial direction, and each of the plurality of second crown blocks has a longitudinally elongated tread surface in which a maximum length in the tire circumferential direction is greater than a maximum width in the tire axial direction [claim 1],
a ratio (L1/W1) of the maximum length L1 of the laterally elongated tread surface in the tire circumferential direction to the maximum width W1 thereof in the tire axial direction is 0.4 to 0.8, and a ratio (L2/W2) of the maximum length L2 of the longitudinally elongated tread surface in the tire circumferential direction to the maximum width W2 thereof in the tire axial direction is 1.3 to 2.0 [claim 2],
an absolute value A1-A2 of a difference between an area Al of the tread surface of each of the first crown blocks and an area A2 of the tread surface of each of the second crown blocks is 40% or less of a smaller one of the area A1 or the area A2 [claim 3]
since (1) China 171 teaches providing a cross country tire having a tread comprising crown blocks and shoulder blocks such that the crown blocks comprise a pair of long crown blocks 1 alternating with wide crown blocks 2; the cross country tire having improved traction and grip off road; it being noted that FIGURE 1 illustrates length L1 of the wide crown block 1 being less than width W1 of wide crown block 1 and length L2 of long crown block 2 being greater than width W2 of long crown block 2; and optionally (2) Nakagawa teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 195/65R15) having a tread comprising crown blocks and shoulder blocks such that the crown blocks comprise long crown blocks and wide crown blocks to improve ice performance [FIGURES 1, 10] wherein (A) Nakagawa teaches length “b” of wide crown blocks is less than width W2 of wide crown blocks, length “a” of long crown blocks is greater than width L1 of long crown blocks, length “a” of long crown blocks = 110-150% of length “b” of wide crown blocks, area S1 of long crown blocks = 40-77% of area S2 of wide crown blocks. width L2 of wide crown block = 18-30% tread width TW, (B) Nakagawa discloses ONE EXAMPLE in which tire size = 195/65R15 and tread width TW = 162 mm; “a” = 30.7 mm, L1 = 24.0 mm, S1 = 737 mm2 (for long block); and “b” = 20.5 mm, L2 = 48.6 mm, and S2 = 996 mm2 (for wide block) [col. 2 lines 60-61, col. 4 lines 15-30], and (C) Nakagawa discloses ANOTHER EXAMPLE in which tire size = 195/65R15 and tread width TW = 162 mm; “a” = 28 mm, L1 = 16.2 mm, S1 = 454 mm2 (for long block); and “b” = 23.3 mm, L2 = 48.6 mm, and S2 = 1130 mm2 (for wide block) [EXAMPLE 2, TABLE 1].
As to claims 1-3, the following additional comments are made: FIGURE 1 of China 171 illustrates L1 < W1 (for wide crown blocks) and L2 > W2 (for long crown blocks) and optional Nakagawa teaches L1 < W1 (for wide crown blocks) and L2 > W2 (for long crown blocks). In the ANOTHER EXAMPLE [EXAMPLE 2, TABLE 1] of Nakagawa, L1/W1 = 0.48 [23.3 mm/48.6 mm = 0.48] and L2/W2 = 1.73 [28 mm/24.3 mm = 1.73]. In the ONE EXAMPLE [col. 4 lines 15-30] of Nakagawa, the absolute difference A1 - A2 is 35% of smaller one of A1 or A2 [996 mm2 - 737 mm2 = 259 mm2 → 259 mm2/737 mm2 x 100% = 35%].
As to claims 13-17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide China 171’s cross country tire such that:
the tread portion includes a tread end, each of the pair of shoulder block rows includes a plurality of shoulder blocks aligned in the tire circumferential direction, and the plurality of shoulder blocks include a first shoulder block extending across the tread end inward and outward of the tread end in the tire axial direction, and a second shoulder block merely disposed inward of the tread end in the tire axial direction [claim 13],
a maximum length of each of the plurality of shoulder blocks in the tire axial direction is 20% to 35% of a tread width [claim 14],
each of the plurality of shoulder blocks includes a shoulder block edge that defines a tread surface, the shoulder block edge includes a pair of lateral block edges extending in the tire axial direction, and a lengthwise block edge extending in the tire circumferential direction so as to connect between inner ends of the pair of lateral block edges in the tire axial direction, and an angle of each of the pair of lateral block edges relative to the tire axial direction is 40° or less
[claim 15],
each of the plurality of shoulder blocks is a plain block having no sipes
[claim 16],
a land ratio of the tread portion is 40% to 60% [claim 17]
since (1) China 171 teaches a cross country tire having a tread comprising crown blocks and shoulder blocks wherein FIGURE 1 illustrates (i) outer edges of shoulder blocks 6 being axially inward of outer edges of shoulder blocks 5 and FIGURE 1, (ii) axial width of shoulder blocks is a minor percentage of tread width, (iii) lateral block edges of the shoulder blocks define a small acute angle with respect to the axial direction and (iv) the block tread pattern has a relatively low land ratio and optionally (2) (A) Kageyama teaches a pneumatic tire (tire size 37x12.50R17) for off road (rocky terrain) wherein (i) outer edges 8, 9 of shoulder blocks are axially offset so that large traction and braking force can be exerted to offer excellent traveling performance on rocky terrain, (ii) axial width of shoulder blocks is a minor percentage of tread width, (iii) land ratio = 45-55% for the tread of the pneumatic tire for off road (rocky terrain) and (iv) not providing sipes in shoulder blocks [FIGURE 11] is an alternative to providing sipes in shoulder blocks [FIGURE 10] and/or (B) Goergen et al teaches a pneumatic tire (tire size 7.50R16) for on road and off road wherein (i) outer edges of shoulder blocks are axially offset so that wide shoulder blocks exert traction when tire is operated on mud and sand, (ii) axial width of shoulder blocks is 26-34% tread width TW [D = 16-25% TW → width (central region) = 2 x D → width (central region) = 32-48% → width (shoulder region) =
(110% - width (central region))/2 → width (shoulder region) = 26-34%], (iii) land ratio =
40-60 % [area ratio = 40-60%] for the tread of the pneumatic tire for on and off road and (iv) not providing sipes in shoulder blocks [FIGURE 2] is an alternative to providing sipes in shoulder blocks [FIGURE 4].
As to claims 13-17, the following additional comments are made. As to claim 13, China 171 illustrates and optional Kageyama et al / Goergen et al teach shoulder blocks having axially offset outer edges. As to claim 14, China 171 illustrates axial width of shoulder blocks is a minor percentage of tread width and optional Goergen et al teaches using width = 26-34% tread width for shoulder blocks. As to claim 15, FIGURE 1 of China 171 illustrates lateral blocks edges of the shoulder blocks 5, 6 (blocks X, Y) in MARKED UP FIGURE) having an angle of 40 degrees or less relative to the tire axial direction. As to claim 16, Kageyama et al and/or Goergen et al teach shoulder blocks being plain blocks having no sipes. As to claim 17, China 171’s FIGURE 1 tread pattern inherently has a land ratio in the range of 40 to 60%, optional Kageyama et al teaches land ratio = 45-55% and optional Goergen et al teaches land ratio = 40-60%.
8) Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China 171 (CN 109050171) and optionally in view of Nakagawa (US 6,102,093), Kageyama et al (US 2017/0057295) and/or Goergen et al (US 5,085,259) as applied above and further in view of Japan 503 (JP 54-088503).
As to claims 4-5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide China 171’s tire such that each of the plurality of first crown blocks includes a first crown block edge that defines the tread surface, the first crown block edge includes a recess including a V-shaped edge that is recessed toward an inner side of the tread surface, in a planar view of a tread, and an angle formed by the V-shaped edge is 80 to 120° [claim 4], the two recesses are disposed in each of the first crown blocks [claim 5] since (1) China 171 discloses a cross country tire having a tread comprising crown blocks and shoulder blocks [machine translation] wherein FIGURE 1 illustrates crown bocks 2 each having long sides and short sides; each long side having a V-shaped recess illustrated as defining an angle of about 125 degrees and (2) Japan 503 discloses a passenger car tire having a tread comprising crown blocks and shoulder blocks [machine translation] wherein FIGURE 2 illustrates crown bocks 11, 12, 13 each having long sides and short sides; each long side having a V-shaped recess illustrated as defining an angle of about 98 degrees.
9) Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China 171 (CN 109050171) and optionally in view of Nakagawa (US 6,102,093), Kageyama et al (US 2017/0057295) and/or Goergen et al (US 5,085,259) as applied above and further in view of Japan 112 (JP 2000-247112) and/or Japan 106 (JP 59-083106 U).
As to claims 6-9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide China 171’s tire such that:
each of the plurality of crown blocks includes a linearly extending shallow groove [claim 6],
the two shallow grooves are disposed in each of the plurality of first crown blocks, and the one shallow groove is disposed in each of the plurality of second crown blocks [claim 7],
each of the plurality of first crown blocks includes a first crown block edge that defines the tread surface, the first crown block edge includes a recess including a V-shaped edge that is recessed toward an inner side of the tread surface, in a planar view of a tread, and the shallow groove of each of the first crown blocks is connected to the recess [claim 8],
a groove depth of the shallow groove is 30% or less of a block height of each of the second crown blocks, and a groove width of the shallow groove is 5% to 15% of the maximum width W2 of each of the second crown blocks in the tire axial direction [claim 9]
since (1) Japan 112 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising blocks such that each block comprises linear longitudinal subgrooves and linear lateral grooves to obtain sufficient wet performance and sufficient ice performance wherein the subgrooves have a width = 0.4 to 3 mm and a depth = 0.5 to 3 mm and wherein the blocks have for example block length = 20 mm, block width = 20 mm, block height =
8 mm or block length = 40 mm, block width = 40 mm, block height = 14 mm [FIGURES 1, 2, 6, machine translation] or (2) Japan 106 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 165SR13) having a tread comprising blocks each having linear auxiliary grooves on a top side thereof to improve traction, braking performance and handling stability on uneven terrain or snow covered roads wherein width (auxiliary groove) = 1 to 4 mm, depth (auxiliary groove) = 1-5 mm and pitch (auxiliary groove) =
2 to 8 mm [FIGURES 1-6, machine translation]. Claims 6-9 read on and fail to exclude multiple linear shallow grooves. As to claim 8, a shallow groove is connected to a recess defined by a V-shaped edge when multiple shallow grooves as per Japan 112 or Japan 106 are provided in a crown block 2 of China 171 which has V-shaped edge defining a recess on each long side thereof. As to claim 9: When width (shallow groove) = 2 mm, depth (shallow groove) = 2 mm [as per either Japan 112 or Japan 106] and width (block) = 20 mm and height (block) = 8 mm [as per Japan 112], then depth (shallow groove) = 25% height (block) [2mm/8 mmx100% = 25%] and width (shallow groove) = 10% width (block) [2 mm/20mmx100% = 10%].
10) Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China 171 (CN 109050171) and optionally in view of Nakagawa (US 6,102,093), Kageyama et al (US 2017/0057295) and/or Goergen et al (US 5,085,259) as applied above and further in view of Cortes (US 2002/0092591) and China 848 (CN 103978848).
As to claims 10-12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide China 171’s tire such that:
each of the plurality of first crown blocks includes a first block wall surface extending inward from the first crown block edge in a tire radial direction and outward of the tread surface, and the first block wall surface is inclined at an angle of 10 to 20° relative to a tread normal line that is normal to the tread at the first crown block edge [claim 10],
each of the plurality of second crown blocks includes a second crown block edge that defines the tread surface, and a second block wall surface extending inward from the second crown block edge in a tire radial direction and outward of the tread surface, and, the second block wall surface is inclined at an angle of 10 to 20° relative to a tread normal line that is normal to a tread at the second crown block edge [claim 11],
the second crown block edges of the second crown block pair include inner block edges opposing each other, each inner block edge includes a first inclined portion that includes a first end of the inner block edge in a longitudinal direction and is inclined relative to the tire circumferential direction toward a first side, and a second inclined portion that is connected to the first inclined portion, and is inclined toward a side opposite to the first side, an angle of the first inclined portion relative to the tire circumferential direction is 20 to 40°, and an angle of the second inclined portion relative to the tire circumferential direction is 40 to 60° [claim 12]
since (1) China 171 teaches a cross country tire having a tread comprising crown blocks and shoulder blocks including a longitudinally extending zigzag groove separating crown blocks 1 [this zigzag groove defining an angle (e.g. about 20 degrees) of a first portion and an angle (e.g. about 65 degrees) of a second portion], (2) Cortes teaches providing a motor vehicle tire (e.g. car tire) having a tread comprising blocks separated by grooves such that wall surfaces of the grooves are inclined at an angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 45 degrees with respect normal to tread surface (greater than 90 degrees and less than 135 degrees with respect to tread surface) to prevent debris (e.g. mud, snow, small rocks) being trapped in grooves so as to maintain traction in a variety of conditions [FIGURES 1-4], and (3) China 848 teaches a pneumatic tire (radial tire) for muddy road having a tread comprising crown blocks and shoulder blocks separated by grooves wherein wall surfaces of a groove are inclined at an angle of 12 degrees with respect to normal to tread surface [FIGURES 1-2, machine translation].
Remarks
11) The remaining references are of interest.
12) No claim is allowed.
13) 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
April 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights