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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (US 5772806), and optionally Nakamura (JP 03001910, see updated machine translation) (of record) and Suzuki (JP 2018099805, see machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Moriya discloses a tire including a tread portion (Fig. 1a), wherein the tread portion comprises a ground contacting surface (Figs. 1a, 1b), a first groove (Fig. 1: 2) and a second groove (Fig. 1: 2) in the ground contacting surface that form two grooves adjacent to each other in the tread portion, and one or more sipes (Figs. 1a-1d, 2a-2b: 3) each having one end connected with the first groove and the other end connected with the second groove so as to communicate with the two grooves in the tread portion (Fig. 1), wherein each sipe includes a main body portion (Figs. 1c-1d, 2a-2b: 3), a reinforcing portion (Figs. 1c-1d, 2a-2b: 3e), a radially inner end edge (Figs. 1c-1d, 2a-2b), and a first connection portion between the sipe and the first groove (Fig. 1a), the reinforcing portion includes a first reinforcing portion formed locally on the sipe within an area extending from the radially inner end edge to the first connection portion (Figs. 1c-1d, 2a-2b: 3e), the first reinforcing portion does not extend over an entire length of the sipe in an axial direction (Figs. 1c-1d, 2a-2b: 3e), and the first reinforcing portion is spaced apart from the ground contacting surface and from any other reinforcing portion, if any, formed on the sipe (Figs. 1d, 2b).
Moriya further provides an example wherein the main body portion has a thickness of 0.5 mm (Col. 4 lines 44-45), which approaches the claimed range of 0.2 mm or less. Case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a thickness of 0.5 mm to behave in substantially the same way as a thickness of 0.2 mm. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a thickness of the main body portion.
Moriya further provides an example wherein the reinforcing portion has a thickness of 1.5 mm (Col. 4 lines 45-46), which falls within the claimed range of greater than 0.2 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a thickness of the reinforcing portion.
Although Moriya does not expressly recite a mold for vulcanization molding the tire including a tread ring for forming the tread portion, the tread ring comprising a ground contacting surface molding portion, a first groove forming convex portion and a second groove forming convex portion protruding from the ground contacting surface molding portion, and one or more blades each having one end connected with the first groove forming convex portion and the other end connected with the second groove forming convex portion, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that the tire comprising the tread portion disclosed by Moriya would be formed in a manner generally known in the art, such as a mold comprising the claimed features that correspond directly to the tire features disclosed by Moriya. Moreover, although Moriya does not expressly recite that the mold includes a tread ring for forming the tread portion, one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the tread mold may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) using an annular tread ring mold; or (2) using a flat tread mold. In other words, there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that a skilled artisan may choose from with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that when there is a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options with his or her technical grasp. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(B).
Optionally, Nakamura discloses a mold for vulcanization molding a tire, comprising: a ground contacting surface molding portion (Figs. 1, 3-7: 2) for forming a ground contacting surface of the tread portion (Figs. 9-12); a first groove forming convex portion (Fig. 1: 3) and a second groove forming convex portion (Figs. 1, 9-12: see how mold has ribs 3 to form grooves 13 in tread and how grooves 13 in tread are connected to both ends of sipes 17 corresponding to sipe blades 4 in mold) protruding from the ground contacting surface molding portion so as to form two grooves adjacent to each other in the tread portion (Figs. 9-12: 13) (Page 5 lines 2-6); and one or more blades (Figs. 1, 3-7: 4) each having one end connected with the first groove forming convex portion (Fig. 1: 3) and the other end connected with the second groove forming convex portion so as to form a sipe communicating with the two grooves in the tread portion (Figs. 9-12: see how sipes 17 formed by sipe blades 4 have grooves 13 formed by ribs 3 at both ends), wherein the blade or each blade (Figs. 1, 3-7: 4) includes a main body portion having a thickness, a reinforcing portion (Figs. 3-7: 7) having a thickness (Fig. 3: d), a radially inner end edge (Figs. 1, 3-4, 6-7: see end of blade 4 opposite of embedded portion 5, e.g., 9 in Figs. 6-7), and a first connection portion between the blade or each blade (Fig. 1: 4) and the first groove forming convex portion (Fig. 1: 3), and the reinforcing portion includes a first reinforcing portion formed locally on the radially inner end edge side and the first connection portion side (Figs. 4, 6-7: see any one portion 7). Nakamura further discloses the main body portion has a thickness of 0.2 to 0.6 mm (Page 4 lines 37-39), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2 mm or less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a thickness of a main body portion of each blade. Nakamura further discloses the reinforcing portion has a thickness of 1 to 5 mm (Page 4 lines 37-39), which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 0.2 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a thickness of a reinforcing portion. Accordingly, Nakamura discloses a generally known manner of forming a tread having sipes which uses a mold having sipe blades that correspond to the mold tread portion and sipes. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to form the tread portion having the sipes of Moriya using a mold generally known in the tread molding art, as taught by Nakamura.
Optionally, Suzuki discloses a tread mold for forming circumferential grooves and sipes with reinforcing portions onto a tread surface (Figs. 1-4), wherein the mold is an annular tread ring (Fig. 2) ([0002], [0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Moriya to include a tread ring as is generally known in the substantially similar tire mold art, as taught by Suzuki.
The examiner notes that the claim limitation “formed locally on the sipe within an area extending from the radially inner end edge to the first connection portion” is broad and only requires the first reinforcing portion to exist within “an area” that extends from the radially inner end edge to the first connection portion and not itself extend from the radially inner end edge to the first connection portion. Moriya discloses such an area and a first reinforcing portion within said area.
Regarding claim 2, Moriya further discloses the sipe includes a second connection portion connecting with the second groove (Figs. 1a, 1d, 2b), the reinforcing portion includes a second reinforcing portion formed locally on the sipe within an area extending from the radially inner end edge to the second connection portion (Figs. 1d, 2b), the second reinforcing portion does not extend over an entire length of the sipe in the axial direction (Figs. 1d, 2b), and the second reinforcing portion is spaced apart from the ground contacting surface and from any other reinforcing portion, if any, formed on the sipe (Figs. 1d, 2b).
Accordingly, modified Moriya discloses the blade or each blade includes a second connection portion connecting with the second groove forming convex portion, the reinforcing portion includes a second reinforcing portion formed locally on the blade within an area extending from the radially inner end edge to the second connection portion, the second reinforcing portion does not extend over an entire length of the blade in the mold axial direction, and the second reinforcing portion is spaced apart from the ground contacting surface molding portion and from any other reinforcing portion, if any, formed on the blade.
The examiner notes that the claim limitation “formed locally on the sipe within an area extending from the radially inner end edge to the second connection portion” is broad and only requires the first reinforcing portion to exist within “an area” that extends from the radially inner end edge to the first connection portion and not itself extend from the radially inner end edge to the first connection portion. Moriya discloses such an area and a first reinforcing portion within said area.
Regarding claim 9, Moriya further discloses the first and second grooves may extend in a zigzag manner in a circumferential direction (Col. 3 lines 29-32). Accordingly, modified Moriya discloses the corresponding first and second groove forming convex portions also extend in a zigzag manner in a mold circumferential direction.
Although Moriya does not expressly recite that both ends of the blade or each blade are connected with apexes of the zigzags of the first groove forming convex portion and the second groove forming convex portion, one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the blade connections to the first and second groove forming convex portions may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) both ends of the blade or each blade are connected with apexes of the zigzags of the first groove forming convex portion and the second groove forming convex portion; (2) both ends of the blade or each blade are connected with points that are not apexes of the zigzags of the first groove forming convex portion and the second groove forming convex portion; (3) one end of the blade or each blade is connected with an apex of the zigzags of the first groove forming convex portion and an other end of the blade or each blade is connected with a point that is not an apex of the zigzags of the second groove forming convex portion; or (4) one end of the blade or each blade is connected with an apex of the zigzags of the second groove forming convex portion and an other end of the blade or each blade is connected with a point that is not an apex of the zigzags of the first groove forming convex portion. In other words, there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that a skilled artisan may choose from with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that when there is a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options with his or her technical grasp. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(B). Accordinfly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Moriya in order to provide both ends of the blade or each blade are connected with apexes of the zigzags of the first groove forming convex portion and the second groove forming convex portion.
Regarding claim 11, Moriya further discloses the sipe has a planar shape (Figs. 1c-1d, 2a-2b). Accordingly, modified Moriya discloses the corresponding blade has a planar shape.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (US 5772806), and optionally Nakamura (JP 03001910, see updated machine translation) (of record) and Suzuki (JP 2018099805, see machine translation) (of record) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Nakamura (JP 03001910, see updated machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura further discloses a protruding height of the blade or each blade (Fig. 1: 4) from the ground contacting surface molding portion (Fig. 1: 2) is smaller than a protruding height of the first groove forming convex portion (Fig. 1: 3) and a protruding height of the second groove forming convex portion from the ground contacting surface molding portion.
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura further discloses at least two axial groove forming convex portions protruding from the ground contacting surface molding portion and each connecting the first groove forming convex portion and the second groove forming convex portion (Fig. 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 13-18, and 20 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 3, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1 and 3. In particular, the limitations “wherein the first reinforcing portion includes a first portion extending outward in a mold radial direction from the radially inner end edge of the blade or each blade to the first connection portion.”
Claims 4-8, 13-18, and 20 are allowable by dependence on claim 3.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Moriya (US 5772806) and Sawada (JP 2006051863, see machine translation).
Moriya discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the detailed rejection above. However, Moriya discloses a reinforcing portion that extends along the radially inner end edge to form a channel along the bottom of the sipe and therefore does not recite a structure wherein the first reinforcing portion includes a first portion extending outward in a mold radial direction from the radially inner end edge of the blade or each blade to the first connection portion. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have found it obvious to modify Moriya contrary to its expressly disclosed structure, especially without a motivation or teaching to do so.
Sawada discloses a tire including a tread portion (Figs. 1-2: 18), wherein the tread portion comprises a ground contacting surface, a first groove (Figs. 1-2: 22; Fig. 2: 24) and a second groove (Figs. 1-2: 22; Fig. 2: 24) in the ground contacting surface that form two grooves adjacent to each other in the tread portion, and one or more sipes (Figs. 2-3, 5, 8-9: 32, 34; Fig. 6: 42; Fig. 7: 52) each having one end connected with the first groove and the other end connected with the second groove so as to communicate with the two grooves in the tread portion, wherein each sipe includes a main body portion having a thickness of less than the reinforcing portion which is 1 mm or less ([0037]), a reinforcing portion having a thickness 1 mm or less ([0037]), a radially inner end edge (Figs. 1-9), and a first connection portion between the sipe and the first groove (Figs. 1-9), the reinforcing portion includes a first reinforcing portion formed locally on the sipe within an area extending from the radially inner end edge to the first connection portion (Figs. 6-7), the first reinforcing portion does not extend over an entire length of the sipe in an axial direction (Figs. 6-7), and the first reinforcing portion is spaced apart from the ground contacting surface and from any other reinforcing portion, if any, formed on the sipe (Figs. 6-7). Case law holds that shifting the position of a component would have been obvious absent a showing that the rearrangement modified the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to merely switch the circumferential and transverse sipe structures such that the transverse sipes were provided with the reinforcing portions instead of the circumferential sipes. Additionally or alternatively, case law holds that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to merely provide the transverse sipes with reinforcing portions as well for increased drainage performance. However, similar to Moriya, Sawada discloses a reinforcing portion that extends along the radially inner end edge to form a channel along the bottom of the sipe and therefore does not recite a structure wherein the first reinforcing portion includes a first portion extending outward in a mold radial direction from the radially inner end edge of the blade or each blade to the first connection portion. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have found it obvious to modify Sawada contrary to its expressly disclosed structure, especially without a motivation or teaching to do so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues against the Nakamura reference. The examiner notes that Nakamura is no longer relied upon as the primary reference, and instead is relied upon as an optional teaching for modifying Moriya to disclose a mold corresponding to the tread portion provided as discussed in the detailed rejection above. Accordingly, Moriya discloses the amended claim limitations of claim 1 and Nakamura is merely relied upon to further reinforce that Moriya discloses a tread portion that must be formed by a corresponding mold known in the art.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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 on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights