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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (US Pub. No. 2022/0169077) in view of Hashimoto (JP2009-096220; machine translation relied upon).
PNG
media_image1.png
1700
2200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1-2, Kitamura teaches a tire comprising a tread portion, the tread portion being extremely similar to applicant’s tread portion, having identical or near identical equatorial rib, middle blocks, and shoulder blocks (compare figure 1 to applicant’s figure 1), the tread portion having a first tread edge and a second tread edge, and provided with four zigzag circumferential grooves disposed between the first and second tread edges and extending continuously in a tire circumferential direction so that the tread portion is axially divided into five land portions, wherein the four circumferential grooves are a first shoulder circumferential groove closest to the first tread edge, a second shoulder circumferential groove closest to the second tread edge, a first crown circumferential groove between the first shoulder circumferential groove and a tire equator, and a second crown circumferential groove between the second shoulder circumferential groove and the tire equator, the first and second crown circumferential grooves have a zigzag shape and comprises axially inner and outer groove segments extending linearly in the circumferential direction and oblique groove segments connecting between the axially inner and outer groove segments, the five land portions include a first middle land portion between the first shoulder circumferential groove and the first crown circumferential groove, a second middle land portion between the second shoulder circumferential groove and the second crown circumferential groove, and a crown land portion between the first crown circumferential groove and the second crown circumferential groove, the first middle land portion is provided with first middle lateral grooves extending across an entire axial width thereof, the second middle land portion is provided with second middle lateral grooves extending across an entire axial width thereof, each of the first middle lateral grooves and the second middle lateral grooves is inclined with respect to the tire axial direction so as to have a first end on a first side in the tire circumferential direction and a second end on a second side in the tire circumferential direction, in a plan view of the tread portion, the first ends of the first middle lateral grooves respectively overlap first virtual zones formed by extending the second ends of the second middle lateral groove to the first middle land portion in parallel with the tire axial direction (paragraphs [0110]-[0127]; figure 1). The description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP at 2125). 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). Kitamura does not specifically disclose that the second ends of the first middle lateral grooves respectively overlap second virtual zones formed by extending the first ends of the second middle lateral grooves to the first middle land portion in parallel with the tire axial direction. However, Kitamura is not particularly limiting with respect to the angle of the middle lateral grooves. It is well-known in the tire art to angle lateral grooves at an angle of from 0 to 45 degrees, as is shown, e.g., by Hashimoto (see machine translation at page 6, sixth paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to angle the middle lateral grooves of Kitamura from 0 to 45 degrees as taught by Hashimoto as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Such a combination would result in second ends of the first middle lateral grooves respectively overlap second virtual zones formed by extending the first ends of the second middle lateral grooves to the first middle land portion in parallel with the tire axial direction as claimed (see modified figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Kitamura teaches a specific embodiment where the claimed overlapping amount is about 90% (figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, varying the lateral groove angles as set forth above would result in embodiments with a variety of overlap percentages, with such percentages ranging up to 100% (see modified figure 1 above).
Regarding claims 6-7, Kitamura teaches a specific embodiment where the distance in the axial direction from the equator to the center line of the first and second crown circumferential grooves is about 15% of a half tread width (figure 1).
Regarding claims 8-9, Kitamura teaches a specific embodiment where the groove widths of the first and second middle lateral grooves are about 16% of an average value of pitch lengths of the respective groove (figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Kitamura teaches an equatorial rib shaped identically or substantially similarly to that of applicant (compare figure 1 to figure 1 of the instant application), thus it is expected to have a similar land ratio, and to read on the claimed 80 to 95% land ratio.
Regarding claim 13, Kitamura teaches that the first crown circumferential groove has a zigzag shape and comprises axially inner and outer groove segments extending linearly in the circumferential direction and oblique groove segments connecting between the axially inner and outer groove segments (figure 1), and for the modified configuration set forth above, the first middle lateral grooves would be connected to one of connection portions between the axially outer groove segments and the oblique groove segments of the first crown circumferential groove so that an angle formed between the first middle lateral groove and the axially outer groove segment is an obtuse angle, and the same similarly for the second middle lateral grooves (see modified figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, Kitamura teaches that the first and second middle lateral grooves are inclined in the same direction (figure 1; modified figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, Kitamura teaches that the first and second middle lateral grooves have a very gentle curve (figure 1), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a straight groove instead of a very gently curved groove as a minor modification with a predictable result.
Regarding claim 21, Kitamura teaches that the first and second middle lateral grooves have a very gentle narrowing (figure 1), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a constant width groove instead of a very gently narrowing groove as a minor modification with a predictable result.
Regarding claim 22, Kitamura teaches that the first middle land portion is provided with sipes each inclined to an opposite direction to the first middle lateral groove with respect to the tire axial direction (figure 1), and the modified embodiment set forth above has such an angle within the 20 to 40 degree range (see modified figure 1 above).
Claims 16-17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Fujiwara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakatani (JP11-245630; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 16-17, Kitamura teaches a plurality of first and second crown lateral grooves which are direct extensions of the middle lateral grooves (figure 1), such that the third and fourth virtual zones overlap with the first and second virtual zones. However, Nakatani teaches a quite similar tread pattern with a very similar central rib 12D, where the first and second crown lateral grooves are staggered from the middle lateral grooves (machine translation at page 4; figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to stagger the crown lateral grooves from the middle lateral grooves as taught by Nakatani in the tire of Kitamura (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. As is depicted in the modified embodiment above, the modified lateral grooves, along with the original crown lateral grooves staggered from the lateral grooves, results in third and fourth virtual zones which do not overlap the claimed first and second virtual zones.
Regarding claim 24, Kitamura does not specifically disclose alternating the T-junctions of the crown and middle lateral grooves. Nakatani teaches alternating the T-junctions of the crown and middle lateral grooves (figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alternate the connections of the crown and middle lateral grooves as taught by Nakatani in the tire of Kitamura in order to spread out the pitch noise of the tire.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 25-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 23, Kitamura teaches a center sipe, an inner sipe, and an outer sipe, however, the inner and outer sipes are inclined in the opposite direction and more than 5 degrees different from the center sipe, and there is no particular teaching or suggestion in the prior art of record to modify Kitamura to arrive at the invention as claimed in claim 23 where the inner and outer sipes are inclined with an angular difference of 5 degrees or less from the center sipe;
Regarding claims 25-26, Kitamura teaches transverse and non-transverse shoulder lateral grooves, however, the non-transverse shoulder lateral grooves do not end axially inside of the first tread edge, and do not have a groove width in a range of 40% to 60% of a groove width of the transverse shoulder lateral grooves, and there is no particular teaching or suggestion in the prior art of record to modify Kitamura to arrive at the invention as claimed in claim 25 where the non-transverse shoulder lateral grooves end axially inside of the first tread edge and have a groove width in a range of 40% to 60% of a groove width of the transverse grooves.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims over Muller and Kagimoto have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of the claims over Muller and Kagimoto have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections over Kitamura have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the second virtual zone in Kitamura does not overlap with the second end of one of the first middle lateral grooves. However, as is shown above in the modified figure (which has been darkened to clarify the modification) and was shown in the prior Office action, the second virtual zone in Kitamura does overlap with the second end of one of the first middle lateral grooves.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 May 20, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights