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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (A3), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant's election with traverse of Species A5 and B2 in the reply filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: the species A1-A5 do not represent patentably distinct inventions or species, but rather they constitute a logical and incremental progression of the same “localized reinforcing portion” concept; Species A5 and B2 are not mutually exclusive and the disclosure discloses that the reinforcement structure of Figs. 5-6 is intended to combine with the zig zag groove of Fig. 7, thereby serving as complementary design variations within a single inventive concept; the differences between Species A5 and Species B2 are merely additional limitations that further define the mold already recited generically in claim 1; and the search for the “locally formed reinforcing position” of Species A5 would necessarily involve the same technical field and prior art related to the tire mold blade reinforcement, regardless of whether the groove forming convex portion is straight or zigzag, and searching these features together does not impose a “serious burden” on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the proper inquiry under restriction practice is not whether the embodiments are conceptually related or represent variations along a design continuum, but whether they are patentably distinct and the examination of them all together would pose a serious search burden on the examiner. Here, the elected and non-elected species are drawn to distinct configurations, as disclosed in Applicant’s specification, having different shaping geometries and design characteristics. The differing characteristics require separate consideration of different prior art classifications and search fields directed to each different embodiment. The fact that Applicant characterizes the species as “incremental progression” does not negate patentable distinctness that will require independent searches six different configurations (as the species were A1-A6 and not A1-A5 as argued by Applicant, which the examiner notes Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the restriction requirement since A6 was omitted, as well as B1-B2 in the discussion of patentably distinct species). Moreover, the species within group A were identified as different embodiments from each other within that group, and the species within group B were identified as different embodiments from each other within that group. Thereby, the examiner did not require a selection between the species in group A as compared to group B, and it is not persuasive that Applicant is arguing that Species A5 and B2 are not mutually exclusive as they were not in the same grouping of species. Each grouping of species (A1-A6 and B1-B2) represents groups of species where within each group the respective species were independent and distinct from each other as they were all disclosed as being different embodiments that could not coexist. Additionally, the matter of “single inventive concept” is not germane to restriction under U.S. practice, but instead is relied on for restriction under Unity of Invention. Furthermore, even assuming overlap in general subject matter, the presence of common terminology does not eliminate the need for distinct searches where the claimed species are defined by materially different configurations. Species A1-A6 and Species B1-B2 are directed to different structural configurations which each requires a separate search strategy and consideration of distinct prior art disclosures directed to alternative configurations. The proper inquiry into search burden is not whether the groups fall within a broad field, but whether examination of each species can efficiently be conducted without significant duplication of effort. Here, the differing configurations necessitate separate searches in different subfields of tread mold design. The examiner further notes that a species restriction does not require a showing that each species is mutually exclusive in operation or purpose, but instead that the species are distinct in structure and would require different fields of search and examination, as is the case here.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-11 and 13-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrases “the radially inner end edge side and the first connection portion side” in lines 16-17 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are indefinite by dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “the second connection portion side” in line 5 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-11, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 03001910, see updated machine translation) (of record) and optionally Suzuki (JP 2018099805, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, 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.
Although Nakamura 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). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide the tread mold as a tread ring as it is a predictable solution that a skilled artisan may choose from with a reasonable expectation of success.
Optionally, Suzuki discloses a tread mold for forming circumferential grooves and sipes with reinforcing portions onto a tread surface (Figs. 1-4), similar to Nakamura, 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 the mold of Nakamura to be a tread ring as is generally known in the substantially similar tire mold art, as taught by Suzuki.
The examiner notes the claim limitations “the radially inner end edge side and the first connection portion side” are very broad and do not require any boundaries as to what constitutes a “side.” A “side” could mean only along the edge, it could mean from a halfway point in the blade until the edge, etc. Accordingly, Nakamura discloses embodiments where the first reinforcing portion is formed locally on a radially inner end edge side and a first connection portion side (Figs. 4, 6-7).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura further discloses the blade or each blade (Figs. 1, 3-7: 4) includes a second connection portion connecting with the second groove forming convex portion, and the reinforcing portion includes a second reinforcing portion formed locally on the radially inner end edge side and the second connection portion side (Figs. 4, 6-7: see how there are duplicate portions 7 on both sides of blade 4).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura further discloses the first reinforcing portion includes a first portion extending outward in the mold radial direction from the radially inner end edge of the blade or each blade in a linear of lattice pattern (Figs. 6-7). Nakamura also discloses that the reinforcing portions (Figs. 6-7: 7) may have any shape of the narrow groove (i.e., sipe) formed on the inner wall surface of the sipe blade (Figs. 6-7: 4) of the intended tire (Page 4 lines 9-10). This is further embodied in the illustrated examples of some preferable configurations (Figs. 4, 6-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakamura so as to provide the first reinforcing portion to include a first portion extending outward in the mold radial direction from the radially inner end edge of the blade or each blade to the first connection portion (for example by rearranging/tilting the lattice pattern with respect to the radially inner end edge and the first connection portion, see example annotated figure below showing a tilted lattice pattern having 3 ribs in each vertical and horizontal direction as in Fig. 7). Moreover, 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. Accordingly, modifying a known arrangement, such as the lattice pattern in Nakamura, to a diagonal or tilted configuration is merely a rearrangement of known elements that perform the same reinforcing function in a predictable manner and thereby amount to an obvious matter of design choice subject to routine optimization. Such a modification would have yielded no unexpected results as changes in orientation of known reinforcing patterns are understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to provide predictable variations in directional reinforcement characteristics, especially since Nakamura also discloses embodiments where the ribs (Fig. 4: 7) may be diagonally placed and the shapes of the ribs may be changed for the intended tire, as discussed above.
The examiner notes Applicant’s own characterization of the disclosed embodiments as “a logical and incremental progression of the same ‘localized reinforcing portion’ concept” (Applicant’s 04/22/2026 Remarks: Page 2) supports the conclusion that the claimed geometrical configurations constitute predictable design variations that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Further, Nakamura expressly teaches that the reinforcement portion geometry may be formed in various shapes and configurations depending on desired molding characteristics and performance requirements of the intended tire. In view of Applicant’s admission that the embodiments represent variations of the same underlying concept, and in light of Nakamura’s teaching that any suitable shape may be employed, it would have been obvious to modify the disclosed reinforcing portion shape as a matter of routine design choice to achieve predictable results within the ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the examiner notes this determination does not alter the propriety of the restriction requirement because the restriction analysis is directed to whether the claimed species present distinct search and examination considerations, not whether the claimed subject matter may ultimately be unpatentable over the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
461
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above in claim 3, Nakamura discloses the shape and configuration of the first reinforcing portion may be modified, such as by tilting the lattice pattern. Nakamura also discloses the first reinforcing portion includes a second portion extending inward in the mold radial direction from the first portion so as to intersect with the first portion (Fig. 7: see how the lattice pattern requires first and second portions to intersect).
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above in claims 3-4, Nakamura discloses the shape and configuration of the first reinforcing portion may be modified, such as by tilting the lattice pattern. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide the second portion has an inner end in the mold radial direction reaching a connection between the first groove forming convex portion and the radially inner end edge of the blade or each blade.
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura further discloses the first portion and the second portion have a rib shape (Figs. 3-4, 6-7: see how 7 has rib shape).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura further discloses the first portion and the second portion protrude on both sides in the thickness direction of the main body portion of the blade or each blade (Figs. 3, 6-7: see how 7 may have a thickness extending on both sides of blade 4).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura further discloses a thickness of each of the first portion and the second portion may be 1.6 to 25 times the thickness of the main body portion (Page 4 lines 37-39: wherein the main body portion has a thickness of 0.2 to 0.6 mm and the reinforcing portion has a thickness of 1 to 5 mm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 to 3 times. 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 the thickness of the first and second portions relative to the main body portion.
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 11, Nakamura further discloses the blade or each blade (Figs. 1, 3-7: 4) has a planar shape.
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura further discloses the first portion extends linearly so as to have a rib shape (Figs. 6-7). Moreover, as discussed above in claims 3-4, Nakamura discloses the shape and configuration of the first reinforcing portion may be modified, such as by tilting the lattice pattern. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide the first portion extending linearly and obliquely with respect to the mold radial direction so as to have a rib shape.
Regarding claims 14-15, as discussed above in claim 3, Nakamura discloses the shape and configuration of the first reinforcing portion may be modified. While modified Nakamura does not explicitly disclose the value for a length (L1) relative to a length (L2) or a length (L3) relative to a length (L4), it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said lengths. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize a length (L1) relative to a length (L2) or a length (L3) relative to a length (L4) in order to achieve the intended and desired tire design, as suggested by Nakamura.
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura further discloses an angle at which the first portion and the second portion intersect is in the range from 80 to 100 degrees (Fig. 7: see how lattice pattern of ribs 7 intersect perpendicularly, i.e., 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura further discloses the first reinforcing portion includes a second portion extending inward in the mold radial direction from the first portion so as to intersect with the first portion and have a rib shape, and the first portion and the second portion form the first reinforcing portion having a T-shape (Fig. 7: see T-shape formed by intersecting ribs 7).
Regarding claim 18, as discussed above in claims 3-4, 13, and 17, Nakamura discloses the shape and configuration of the first reinforcing portion may be modified, such as by tilting the lattice pattern. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide the second portion extends linearly to reach an intersection point of the first groove forming convex portion and the radially inner end edge of the blade or each blade.
Claim(s) 9 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 03001910, see updated machine translation) (of record) and optionally Suzuki (JP 2018099805, see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito (JP 5957496, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura does not expressly recite the first groove forming convex portion and the second groove forming convex portion extend in a zigzag manner in the mold circumferential direction, and 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.
Ito discloses a tread pattern comprising a first groove convex portion (Figs. 1-4: 3) and the second groove convex portion (Figs. 1-4: 10) extending in a zigzag manner in the circumferential direction (Figs. 1-4), wherein both ends of a sipe (Figs. 1-4: 50) are connected with apexes of the zigzags of the first groove convex portion and the second groove convex portion (Figs. 1-4). The zigzag groove extending continuously in the circumferential direction exerts frictional force in the circumferential direction of the tire when driving on ice and thereby effectively scratches the road surface and improves performance on ice ([0016], [0022]). The sipes are also used to improve performance on ice ([0002]). The tire of Ito achieves both ice performance and wear resistance by improving the arrangement of sipes ([0006]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the grooves and sipes of Ito would be formed by corresponding mold components. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Nakamura in order to provide the tread pattern of Ito for the advantages discussed above. Thereby, Nakamura in view of Ito discloses that the first groove forming convex portion and the second groove forming convex portion extend in a zigzag manner in the mold circumferential direction, and 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 19, Ito further discloses at least two axial groove convex portions (Figs. 1-4: 11) in a ground contacting surface and each connecting the first groove convex portion (Figs. 1-4: 3) and the second groove convex portion (Figs. 1-4: 10). Accordingly, Nakamura in view of Ito 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.
Regarding claim 20, Ito further discloses each of the axial groove convex portions (Figs. 1-4: 11) is connected to one of apexes of the zigzag of the first groove convex portion (Figs. 1-4: 3) and one of apexes of the zigzag of the second groove convex portion (Figs. 1-4: 10). Accordingly, Nakamura in view of Ito discloses each of the axial groove forming convex portions is connected to one of apexes of the zigzag of the first groove forming convex portion and one of apexes of the zigzag of the second groove forming convex portion.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (JP H03189112, see updated machine translation) (of record) and optionally Suzuki (JP 2018099805, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita discloses a mold for vulcanization molding a tire comprising: a ground contacting surface molding portion for forming a ground contacting surface of the tread portion (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 1); a first groove forming convex portion and a second groove forming convex portion (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 2) protruding from the ground contacting surface molding portion so as to form two grooves (Fig. 12A: 2a) adjacent to each other in the tread portion; and one or more blades (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 3) each having one end connected with the first groove forming convex portion and the other end connected with the second groove forming convex portion (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 2) so as to form a sipe (Fig. 12C: 3a) communicating with the two grooves in the tread portion, a radially inner end edge (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C), and a first connection portion between the blade or each blade (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 3) and the first groove forming convex portion (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 2), and a reinforcing portion (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 5, 5a) includes a first reinforcing portion formed locally on the radially inner end edge side and the first connection portion side (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: see where 5, 5a connects from radially inner end of 3 to 2).
Yamashita further discloses the blade or each blade includes a main body portion having a thickness (Figs. 3-4: t) of 0.1 to 0.8 (Page 3 lines 16-20; Page 4 lines 1-4; Page 5 lines 1-3), 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. If the thickness is less than 0.1 mm it will be too thin and cause the main body portion to bend or break during vulcanization, and if the thickness exceeds 0.8 mm it will be too thick and make it impossible to form narrow sipes on the tire tread surface (Page 4 lines 1-4; Page 5 lines 1-3).
Yamashita further discloses the reinforcing portion (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 5, 5a) having a thickness (Fig. 3: T) greater than or equal to 0.6 mm (Page 3 lines 16-20; Page 4 lines 1-4; Page 6 lines 15-19), which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 0.2 mm. In this manner, a tire is formed which improves the tire’s performance on ice and snow, and also improves the resistance of uneven wear on the tread surface (Page 4 lines 1-4). 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.
Although Yamashita 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). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide the tread mold as a tread ring as it is a predictable solution that a skilled artisan may choose from with a reasonable expectation of success.
Optionally, Suzuki discloses a tread mold for forming circumferential grooves and sipes with reinforcing portions onto a tread surface (Figs. 1-4), similar to Yamashita, 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 the mold of Yamashita to be a tread ring as is generally known in the substantially similar tire mold art, as taught by Suzuki.
The examiner notes the claim limitations “the radially inner end edge side and the first connection portion side” are very broad and do not require any boundaries as to what constitutes a “side.” A “side” could mean only along the edge, it could mean from a halfway point in the blade until the edge, etc. Accordingly, Yamashita discloses embodiments where the first reinforcing portion is formed locally on a radially inner end edge side and a first connection portion side.
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita further discloses the blade or each blade (Figs. 1, 3-4, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 3) includes a second connection portion connecting with the second groove forming convex portion (Figs. 1, 3-4, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 2), and the reinforcing portion (Figs. 1, 3-4, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 5, 5a) includes a second reinforcing portion formed locally on the radially inner end edge side and the second connection portion side (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: see how both sides of 3 provided with reinforcing portion 5, 5a).
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita further discloses the first reinforcing portion (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 5, 5a) includes a first portion extending outward in the mold radial direction from the radially inner end edge of the blade or each blade to the first connection portion (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: see how 5, 5a extends radially from both radially inner end edge of 3 and first connection portion with 2).
Regarding claim 10, Yamashita further discloses a protruding height of the blade or each blade (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 3) from the ground contacting surface molding portion (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 1) is smaller than a protruding height of the first groove forming convex portion (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 2) and a protruding height of the second groove forming convex portion (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 2) from the ground contacting surface molding portion (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 1).
Regarding claim 11, Yamashita further discloses the blade or each blade has a planar shape (Figs. 1, 3-4, 7A-7C, 8A-C, 10A-10C: 3).
Regarding claim 13, Yamashita further discloses the first portion extends linearly and obliquely with respect to the mold radial direction so as to have a rib shape (Figs. 7A, 8A, 10A: see how 5, 5a is slanted in radial direction and is thin like a rib and thereby extends linearly and obliquely with respect to the mold radial direction).
Claim(s) 9 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (JP H03189112, see updated machine translation) (of record) and optionally Suzuki (JP 2018099805, see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito (JP 5957496, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Yamashita does not expressly recite the first groove forming convex portion and the second groove forming convex portion extend in a zigzag manner in the mold circumferential direction, and 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.
Ito discloses a tread pattern comprising a first groove convex portion (Figs. 1-4: 3) and the second groove convex portion (Figs. 1-4: 10) extending in a zigzag manner in the circumferential direction (Figs. 1-4), wherein both ends of a sipe (Figs. 1-4: 50) are connected with apexes of the zigzags of the first groove convex portion and the second groove convex portion (Figs. 1-4). The zigzag groove extending continuously in the circumferential direction exerts frictional force in the circumferential direction of the tire when driving on ice and thereby effectively scratches the road surface and improves performance on ice ([0016], [0022]). The sipes are also used to improve performance on ice ([0002]). The tire of Ito achieves both ice performance and wear resistance by improving the arrangement of sipes ([0006]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the grooves and sipes of Ito would be formed by corresponding mold components. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Yamashita in order to provide the tread pattern of Ito for the advantages discussed above. Thereby, Yamashita in view of Ito discloses that the first groove forming convex portion and the second groove forming convex portion extend in a zigzag manner in the mold circumferential direction, and 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 19, Ito further discloses at least two axial groove convex portions (Figs. 1-4: 11) in a ground contacting surface and each connecting the first groove convex portion (Figs. 1-4: 3) and the second groove convex portion (Figs. 1-4: 10). Accordingly, Yamashita in view of Ito 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.
Regarding claim 20, Ito further discloses each of the axial groove convex portions (Figs. 1-4: 11) is connected to one of apexes of the zigzag of the first groove convex portion (Figs. 1-4: 3) and one of apexes of the zigzag of the second groove convex portion (Figs. 1-4: 10). Accordingly, Yamashita in view of Ito discloses each of the axial groove forming convex portions is connected to one of apexes of the zigzag of the first groove forming convex portion and one of apexes of the zigzag of the second groove forming convex portion.
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