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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 3, 2024 and July 8, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 2-3, 6-9 and 11-12 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. Claims 2 and 7-8 include the limitation “the shoulder main groove”, but claim 1 on which they depend defines two shoulder main grooves, thus this is a singular/plural mismatch. Claims 3, 6-9 and 11-12 are also rejected as depending upon claim 2 and claims 8-9 are rejected as depending upon claim 7.
Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 includes the limitation “the middle block comprises a first middle block arranged on each side of the center block in the tire axial direction and a second middle block arranged on each side of the center block in the tire circumferential direction”, but a middle block is only a single block, not a plurality of blocks, thus this is a singular/plural mismatch.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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.
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 1-3, 6-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishimoto (US Pat. No. 6,000,450).
Regarding claim 1, Kishimoto teaches a pneumatic tire with a tread, wherein the tread comprises a pair of shoulder regions being delimited by shoulder main grooves 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, and an area of a largest block having a maximum surface area is less than or equal to 1.4 times of an area of a minimum surface area block (column 2, lines 8-10; figures 8 and 10).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 6, Kishimoto teaches a hexagonal center block arranged at a distance from the shoulder main groove, a middle block is arranged around the center block, and the blocks have a surface area ratio of 1 (figure 10).
Regarding claim 7, Kishimoto teaches an annular groove formed in a rectangular or hexagonal shape bordering the center block, a center longitudinal groove connecting circumferentially adjacent annular grooves, and a plurality of center lateral grooves connecting the annular grooves to the shoulder main groove (figures 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 8, Kishimoto teaches that the annular groove has a groove width greater than or equal to 80% of a groove width of the shoulder main groove (figures 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 12, Kishimoto 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 (figures 8 and 10).
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.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP2003-054222; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, 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 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujikawa (JP02-182505).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura does not specifically disclose that all of the blocks have rounded corners. Fujikawa teaches rounding all of the tread blocks with a radius of curvature of 2 to 5 mm in cross section parallel to the surface (abstract; figure 1), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art to round the tread block corners with a radius as taught by Fujikawa in the tire of Nakamura in order to increase steering safety and/or make the rigidity of the blocks more uniform (see Fujikawa at abstract).
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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a block area ratio as taught 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).
Conclusion
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 February 11, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 February 18, 2026