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.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP2003-054222; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches a pneumatic tire with a tread, wherein the tread comprises a pair of shoulder regions being delimited by shoulder main grooves 1 and ground contact edges 4 and 5, and a center region between the pair of shoulder regions, wherein a plurality of blocks are arranged in the center and shoulder regions, and a ratio α between a maximum surface area of a block in a row and a minimum surface area block in a row is 1.3 or less (machine translation at pages 3-4; figure 1), and a specific embodiment has a block with a maximum surface area of 18.69 cm2 and a minimum surface area of 13.37 cm2 (machine translation at page 6), resulting in ratio of 1.398, falling within the claimed range. While the specific embodiment has a center block with a surface area of 14.28 cm2 and a largest block surface area of 18.69 cm2 (machine translation at page 6), resulting in a ratio of 0.76, below the claimed ranges. However, the teaching of using a ratio α between a maximum surface area of a block in a row and a minimum surface area block in a row is 1.3 or less (machine translation at pages 3-4; figure 1) allows for other embodiments. For example, a modified embodiment where the shoulder block ratio was 1, using the surface area Ss3 = 14.56 cm2 for the three shoulder blocks and otherwise identical to the inventive embodiment, would have a greatest block area Sm1 = 15.68 cm2, resulting in a ratio of 0.91 (14.28/15.68), falling within the claimed ranges. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create a modified embodiment similar to the disclosed embodiment, except for having a shoulder block ratio of 1 and a surface area Ss3 = 14.56 cm2 for the three shoulder blocks, as being a minor modification within the inventive conditions and having predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura teaches a rectangular center block 3c2 arranged at a distance from the shoulder main groove, and a middle block 3m2 is arranged around the center block (figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura teaches that none of the blocks has a sipe or slit (figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura teaches that the largest block is shoulder block 3s1 having a surface area Ss1 of 18.69 cm2 (machine translation at page 6).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura teaches an annular groove formed in a rectangular shape bordering the center block 3c2, a center longitudinal groove 1 connecting circumferentially adjacent annular grooves, and a plurality of center lateral grooves 2 connecting the annular grooves to the shoulder main groove (figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura teaches that the annular groove has a groove width greater than or equal to 80% of a groove width of the shoulder main groove (figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura teaches first middle blocks 3m2 and an unnumbered middle block on each side of the center block 3c2 in the axial direction and second middle blocks 3c1 and 3c3 on each side of the center block in the circumferential direction (figure 1).
Claims 1-4, 7, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (US Pub. No. 2021/0039440) in view of Nakamura (JP2003-054222; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki teaches a pneumatic tire with a tread, wherein the tread comprises a pair of shoulder regions being delimited by shoulder main grooves 2c and ground contact edges, and a center region between the pair of shoulder regions, wherein a plurality of blocks are arranged in the center and shoulder regions (paragraphs [0050]-[0064]; figures 2 and 5). Miyazaki does not specifically teach the ratio of an area of a largest block to the area of a smallest block. Nakamura teaches using a ratio α between a maximum surface area of a block in a row and a minimum surface area block in a row is 1.3 or less (machine translation at pages 3-4; figure 1), and a specific embodiment has a block with a maximum surface area of 18.69 cm2 and a minimum surface area of 13.37 cm2 (machine translation at page 6), resulting in ratio of 1.398, falling within the claimed range. While the specific embodiment has a center block with a surface area of 14.28 cm2 and a largest block surface area of 18.69 cm2 (machine translation at page 6), resulting in a ratio of 0.76, below the claimed ranges. However, the teaching of using a ratio α between a maximum surface area of a block in a row and a minimum surface area block in a row is 1.3 or less (machine translation at pages 3-4; figure 1) allows for other embodiments. For example, a modified embodiment where the shoulder block ratio was 1, using the surface area Ss3 = 14.56 cm2 for the three shoulder blocks and otherwise identical to the inventive embodiment, would have a greatest block area Sm1 = 15.68 cm2, resulting in a ratio of 0.91 (14.28/15.68), falling within the claimed ranges. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use block ratios, and center block to largest block ratios as taught or suggested by Nakamura in the tire of Miyazaki in order to reduce the difference in rigidity between blocks and/or make the sound pressure generated by the blocks more uniform and reduce the peak level of pattern noise (see Nakamura machine translation at page 4).
Regarding claims 2-3, Miyazaki teaches a hexagonal center block arranged at a distance from the shoulder main groove, and a middle block is arranged around the center block (figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Miyazaki teaches that none of the blocks has a sipe or slit (figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Miyazaki teaches an annular groove 3 formed in a hexagonal shape bordering the center block, a center longitudinal groove 5 connecting circumferentially adjacent annular grooves, and a plurality of center lateral grooves 4 connecting the annular grooves to the shoulder main groove (paragraphs [0050]-[0064]; figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Miyazaki teaches that central lateral grooves circumferentially adjacent to each other are inclined in opposite directions axially (figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Miyazaki teaches first middle blocks on each side of the center block in the axial direction and second middle blocks on each side of the center block in the circumferential direction (figure 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 2-3, 6-9, and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have traversed the pending rejections of the claims over Kishimoto.
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2026 with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims over Nakamura have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the recalculated area of the three shoulder blocks cannot properly represent the maximum area of the largest block among the center blocks, the middle blocks and the shoulder blocks, and cannot preclude whether any other block having greater area than the three shoulder blocks with area of 15.68 cm2. It is unclear precisely what this sentence is attempting to argue. The modification set forth in the rejection is clear – the center and middle blocks are identical to those of the specific disclosed embodiment, and the shoulder blocks are calculated using a ratio α = 1, where the surface area used is 14.56 cm2 for the three shoulder blocks. In such an embodiment, the block which would have a greatest block area is the middle block Sm1 = 15.68 cm2. No preclusion based on a shoulder block is taking place. Applicant further argues that Nakamura does not explicitly and implicitly teach the claimed feature that an area of the center block is greater than or equal to 0.90 times and less than or equal to 0.95 times the maximum area of the largest block. However, the rejection was not an anticipation rejection, but an obviousness rejection. Accordingly, Nakamura was not required to explicitly and implicitly teach the claimed feature, merely to render the feature obvious, and has done so as was set forth previously in the prior Office action, and again above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 July 23, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights