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 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.
3) 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.
Asano
4) Claims 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Asano (US 5,591,280).
Claims 29-33 are anticipated by Asano’s tire having a tread comprising central blocks having mutually consecutive sipes [FIGURE 2]. Each sipe in a block comprises a first linear portion, only one single wave portion and a second linear portion wherein the single wave portion comprises a first segment, second segment and third segment [FIGURES 2, 3, 5B, 7B]. The claimed first and second sipes read on two of the mutually consecutive sipes of Asano. Claim 29 fails to require the first sipes and second sipes to have different structure. In other words, claim 29 reads on and fails to exclude first and second linear portions of a sipe having the same length.
As to 5-40% distance [claim 29], 25-35% distance [claims 30-31], Asano shows providing the only one single wave portion such that the length of each linear portion is 5-40% block width, 25-35% block width [FIGURES 2, 3, 5B or 7B]. 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). IN ANY EVENT: As to claims 29-31, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Asano’s sipes such that the length of each of the first and second linear portions of the sipe is 5-40% block width [claim 29], the length of each of the linear portions of sipe is 25-35% block width [claims 30, 31] since Asano shows the single wave portion having a relatively small length and being arranged in the middle of a central block [FIGURES 2, 3, 5B, 7B]. As to claims 32 and 33, the wave portion (zigzag portion) of Asano’s sipe has a first segment, second segment and third segment.
5) Claims 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano (US 5,591,280) as applied above and further in view of Japan 426 (JP 2002-046426).
As to claims 34-39, it would have been obvious to provide Asano’s pneumatic tire such that:
said second segment of said single-wave portion of at least one of said first sipe or said second sipe is inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction or said second longitudinal direction, respectively, at an angle greater than an angle of said first segment of at least one of said first sipe or said second sipe, respectively, and an angle of said third segment of at least one of said first sipe or said second sipe, respectively [claim 34],
said first segment and said third segment of said single-wave portion of at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe are inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction or said second longitudinal direction, respectively, at an angle between 20° and 45° [claim 35],
said second segment of said single-wave portion of at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe is inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction or said second longitudinal direction, respectively, at an angle between 60° and 90° [claim 36],
in at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe, said first segment and said third segment of said single-wave portion are substantially parallel [claim 37],
in at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe, a length of said first segment of said single-wave portion is substantially identical to a length of said third segment of said single-wave portion [claim 38],
in at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe, a distance of said first peak from said first longitudinal direction or said second longitudinal direction, respectively, is substantially identical to a distance of said second peak from said first longitudinal direction or said second longitudinal direction, respectively
[claim 39]
since (1) Asano discloses each sipe having a single wave portion (zigzag portion) comprising a first segment, second segment and third segment [FIGURES 2, 3, 5B, 7B] and (2) Japan 426 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising blocks having zigzag sipes such that the middle segment of the zigzag sipe is inclined at an angle α1 = 0 to 45 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction (angle = 45 to 90 degrees with respect to axial direction / sipe center line) and the outer segments of the zigzag sipe are inclined at an angle α2 = 60 to 90 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction (angle = 0 to 30 degrees with respect to axial direction / sipe centerline) to obtain large edge component in lateral direction and large edge component in front-rear direction making abrasion at bent portion of sipe less likely [FIGURES 1-4, especially FIGURE 2, machine translation]. Thus, Japan 426 suggests providing the segments of the wave portion (zigzag portion) of Asano’s sipe with the claimed angles described in claims 34-36. As to claims 37-39, note the wave portion (zigzag portion) of Asano’s sipe.
Taniguchi
6) Claims 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US 2020/0262247) and optionally in view of Asano (US 5,591,280).
Taniguchi discloses a pneumatic passenger tire having a tread comprising blocks separated by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves. The blocks comprise center blocks, mediate blocks and shoulder blocks [FIGURE 1, machine translation]. At least one of the center blocks, mediate blocks and shoulder blocks (e.g. all blocks) comprise sipes [paragraph 65]. Taniguchi’s FIGURES 2, 3 and 4B are reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
662
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to FIGURE 2, the block comprises sipes having two single wave portions comprising a first linear portion, a first single wave portion, a second linear portion, a second single wave portion and a third linear portion. As to FIGURE 4B, the block comprises alternating sipes #1 and sipes #2 wherein sipes #1 comprise a short left first linear portion, only a single undulating portion and a long right linear portion and sipes #2 comprise a long left first linear portion, only a single undulating portion and a short right linear portion. Taniguchi does not literally recite providing the undulating portion of each sipe in the FIGURE 4B embodiment as a single wave portion.
As to claims 29-33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Taniguchi’s pneumatic tire such that:
the tread comprises a plurality of blocks and at least one first sipe and at least one second sipe which are mutually consecutive and which are each formed on each block of said plurality of blocks, said first sipe being open at said tread surface to define a first longitudinal development direction of said first sipe and said second sipe being open at said tread surface to define a second longitudinal development direction of said second sipe, said first longitudinal direction and second longitudinal direction intersecting with a first edge and a second edge of said block of said plurality of blocks; said first sipe comprising: a first linear portion which extends along said first longitudinal direction towards said first edge of said block, only one single-wave portion which extends in continuation of said first linear portion and which has a distance from said first edge measured along said first longitudinal direction between 5% and 40% of a distance between said first edge and said second edge measured along said first longitudinal direction, and a second linear portion which extends in continuation of said single-wave portion towards said second edge, said second sipe comprising: a first linear portion which extends along said second longitudinal direction towards said second edge of said block, only one single-wave portion which extends in continuation of said first linear portion and which has a distance from said second edge measured along said second longitudinal direction between 5% and 40% of a distance between said first edge and said second edge measured along said second longitudinal direction and a second linear portion which extends in continuation of said single-wave portion towards said first edge; wherein both said first linear portion and said second linear portion of said first sipe and of said second sipe are rectilinear or curvilinear with a minimum radius of curvature not less than 20 mm [claim 29],
said single-wave portion of said first sipe has a distance from said first edge measured along said first longitudinal direction between 25% and 35% of the distance between said first edge and said second edge measured along said first longitudinal direction [claim 30],
said single-wave portion of said second sipe has a distance from said second edge measured along said second longitudinal direction between 25% and 35% of the distance between said first edge and said second edge measured along said second longitudinal direction [claim 31],
said single-wave portion of said first sipe comprises: a first segment inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction and which extends from said first linear portion to a first peak, a second segment inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction and which extends from said first peak to a second peak, the second peak defined at an opposite side to said first peak with respect to said first longitudinal direction, and a third segment inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction and which extends from said second peak to said second linear portion [claim 32],
said single-wave portion of said second sipe comprises: a first segment inclined with respect to said second longitudinal direction and which extends from said first linear portion to a first peak, a second segment inclined with respect to said second longitudinal direction and which extends from said first peak to a second peak, the second peak defined at an opposite side to said first peak with respect to said second longitudinal direction, and a third segment inclined with respect to said second longitudinal direction and which extends from said second peak to said second linear portion [claim 33]
since (1) Taniguchi teaches discloses a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising blocks having sipes #1 comprising a first linear portion, only a single undulating-wave portion and a second linear portion [FIGURE 4B] and sipes #2 comprising a first linear portion, only a single undulating-wave portion and a second linear portion [FIGURE 4B] (2) Taniguchi teaches providing a single undulating wave portion of a sipe as a single wave portion comprising a first segment, second segment and third segment [FIGURE 2] and optionally (3) Asano teaches providing sipes in blocks of a tread of a pneumatic tire (passenger size 165SR13) such that each sipe comprise a first linear portion, a relatively short middle single wave portion comprising a first segment, second segment and third segment and a second linear portion [FIGURE 2].
As to claims 29-31,Taniguchi discloses sipes #1 and sipes #2 [FIGURE 4B] each having a first linear portion, a single undulating portion and a second linear portion. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to provide the sipes #1 and sipes #2 of FIGURE 4B such that the single undulating portion is a single wave portion since Taniguchi teaches that an undulating portion may be a single wave portion [FIGURE 2] and optionally Asano teaches providing a sipe comprising a first linear portion, a single undulating portion and a second linear portion such that the single undulating portion is a single wave portion [FIGURE 2]. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide Taniguchi’s FIGURE 4B embodiment such that each of sipes #1 and sipes #2 comprise a first linear portion, only a single wave portion and a second linear portion. As to the distance being 5-40% [claim 29], Taniguchi illustrates each of sipes #1 and sipes #2 comprising a linear portion having a length of about 7% block width. Furthermore, the claimed distances of 5-40% of the distance [claim 29] and 25-35% of the distance [claims 30-31] would have been obvious and could have been determined without undue experimentation depending on desired edge effect since Taniguchi shows providing FIGURE 2 SIPES or FIGURE 4B SIPES such that first linear portion has a shorter length L1 and the second linear portion has a longer length L2 [FIGURE 2] and optionally Asano shows providing a sipe such that the single wave portion has a relatively short length is arranged in a middle region of the sipe.
As to claims 32-33, Taniguchi and the optional Asano teach first, second and third segments of a single wave portion.
7) Claims 34-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US 2020/0262247) in view of and optionally Asano (US 5,591,280) as applied above and further in view of Japan 426 (JP 2002-046426).
As to claims 34-43, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Taniguchi pneumatic passenger tire having a tread comprising blocks having sipes such that
said second segment of said single-wave portion of at least one of said first sipe or said second sipe is inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction or said second longitudinal direction, respectively, at an angle greater than an angle of said first segment of at least one of said first sipe or said second sipe, respectively, and an angle of said third segment of at least one of said first sipe or said second sipe, respectively [claim 34],
said first segment and said third segment of said single-wave portion of at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe are inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction or said second longitudinal direction, respectively, at an angle between 20° and 45° [claim 35],
said second segment of said single-wave portion of at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe is inclined with respect to said first longitudinal direction or said second longitudinal direction, respectively, at an angle between 60° and 90° [claim 36],
in at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe, said first segment and said third segment of said single-wave portion are substantially parallel [claim 37],
in at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe, a length of said first segment of said single-wave portion is substantially identical to a length of said third segment of said single-wave portion [claim 38],
in at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe, a distance of said first peak from said first longitudinal direction or said second longitudinal direction, respectively, is substantially identical to a distance of said second peak from said first longitudinal direction or said second longitudinal direction, respectively
[claim 39],
in at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe, a length of said second linear portion is greater by at least 50% than a length of said first linear portion [claim 40],
in at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe, the length of said second linear portion is greater by at least 100% than the length of said first linear portion [claim 41],
in at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe, the length of said second linear portion is greater by at least 200% than the length of said first linear portion [claim 42],
said first longitudinal direction is substantially parallel with said second longitudinal direction [claim 43]
since (1) Taniguchi and optional Asano teach a wave portion (zigzag portion) comprising a first segment, second segment and third segment and (2) Japan 426 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising blocks having zigzag sipes such that the middle segment of the zigzag sipe is inclined at an angle α1 = 0 to 45 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction (angle = 45 to 90 degrees with respect to axial direction / sipe center line) and the outer segments of the zigzag sipe are inclined at an angle α2 = 60 to 90 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction (angle = 0 to 30 degrees with respect to axial direction / sipe centerline) to obtain large edge component in lateral direction and large edge component in front-rear direction making abrasion at bent portion of sipe less likely [FIGURES 1-4, especially FIGURE 2, machine translation].
As to claims 34-36, Taniguchi and optional Asano teach a wave portion (zigzag portion) comprising a first segment, second segment and third segment and Japan 426 suggests using second segment angle = 45 to 90 degrees (covering claimed range of 60-90 degrees in claim 36) and first, third segment angle = 0-30 degrees (overlapping claimed range of 20-45 degrees in claim 35).
As to claims 37-39, Taniguchi and the optional Asano teach first, second and third segments of a single wave portion.
As to claims 40-42, Taniguchi teaches linear portions having different lengths; the optimum lengths for desired edge effect being determined without undue experimentation.
As to claim 43, sipes #1 and sipes #2 are parallel to each other.
8) Claims 44-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US 2020/0262247) and optionally in view of Asano (US 5,591,280) and further in view of Japan 426 (JP 2002-046426) as applied above and further in view of Katayama (US 6,601,623).
As to claims 44-56, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Taniguchi’s pneumatic tire such that:
in at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe, the length of said first linear portion is between 2 and 5 mm [claim 44],
in at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe, a depth in a region of said first linear portion is less than a depth in a region of said single-wave portion [claim 45],
said first linear portion of said first sipe is open at said first edge of said block [claim 46],
said first linear portion of said second sipe is open at said second edge of said block [claim 47],
said second linear portion of said first sipe is open at said second edge of said block [claim 48],
said second linear portion of said second sipe is open at said first edge of said block [claim 49],
in at least one of said first sipe and said second sipe, the length of said second linear portion is between 4 and 25 mm [claim 50],
in said first sipe, said second linear portion is substantially aligned with said first linear portion along said first longitudinal direction [claim 51],
in said second sipe, said second linear portion is substantially aligned with said first linear portion along said second longitudinal direction [claim 52],
said first peak of said first sipe and said first peak of said second sipe are transversely offset with respect to said first longitudinal direction of said first sipe and said second longitudinal direction of said second sipe, respectively, and are offset in a same transverse direction relative to said first longitudinal direction of said first sipe and said second longitudinal direction of said second sipe, respectively [claim 53],
at least three mutually consecutive sipes are formed on said block, said at least three sipes being formed by an alternating succession of one of said first sipes and one of said second sipes [claim 54],
central blocks are formed on said tread band, the central blocks delimited by one or more grooves, each central block comprising at least one of said first sipes and at least one of said second sipes [claim 55],
at least 80% of the sipes formed on the central blocks of said tread band having a length greater than a minimum predefined value are one of said first sipes or one of said second sipes [claim 56]
since Katayama teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 185/70R14) having a tread comprising blocks having sipes such that the blocks have a width = 20 mm and a length = 30 mm [FIGURE 2, Test Example 4].
As to claims 44 and 50, the claimed lengths would have been obvious in view of Katayama’s disclosure of a known block width of 20 mm [paragraph 71] and Taniguchi’s teaching to provide blocks with sipes having shorter first linear portion and longer second linear portion [FIGURE 4B]. See MPEP 2143 part 1 EXAMPLES OF RATIONALES.
As to claim 45, note Taniguchi’s teaching to provide the wave portion with a deeper depth [FIGURE 3].
As to claims 46-49, Taniguchi teaches both end open sipes [FIGURE 2 or 4B].
As to claims 51 and 52 the linear portions of the sipes are substantially aligned with each other [FIGURE 4B].
In claim 53, “transversely offset” and “offset in a same transverse direction” fails to require sipe structure different than that suggested by the applied prior art.
As to claims 54-56, Taniguchi teaches using four sipes in a central block [FIGURE 1, 4B].
Remarks
9) The remaining references are of interest.
10) No claim is allowed.
11) 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
February 21, 2026