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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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 et al
4) Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Asano et al (US 2022/0009293).
As to claims 1, 3, 5 and 7-8, the claimed tire is anticipated by Asano et al’s heavy duty pneumatic tire (tire size 11R22.5). See FIGURES 1-2, 4, 6 and paragraphs 7, 9, 42, 95, 105-107, 129, EXAMPLES 5-36].
Neau
5) Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Neau (US 2023/0219374).
Neau discloses a pneumatic tire (heavy duty size 13R22.5) having a tread comprising zigzag continuous circumferential grooves. An annotated copy of FIGURE 2 of Neau is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
352
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, the markings were added by examiner to facilitate discussion of Neau. In the MARKED UP FIGURE, “C” is a zigzag continuous circumferential groove, which is colored black. Neau discloses providing a sipe 32 at the bottom of groove 31. FIGURE 3 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
562
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from FIGURE 3, a single projection portion projects into the groove 31 from a side wall of the groove 31 wherein an upper surface of the projection is defined by the groove bottom 311 and a side surface of the projection is defined by the sipe 32.
In FIGURE 3, sipe 32 has an enlarged bottom 321. In FIGURE 1, sipe 32 does not have an enlarged bottom. Neau discloses:
width W11 (groove 31 at top) > 4 mm,
width W11 (groove 31 at top) > width W12 (groove 31 at bottom)
width W2 (sipe 32) = 0.4-2 mm,
depth H1 (groove 31) = 50-200% depth H2 (sipe),
W12/2 > E > W12/6.
In an EXAMPLE, Neau discloses:
W11 = 10.4 mm,
W12 = 4 mm,
W2 = 0.8 mm,
H1 = 10 mm,
H2 = 11.2 mm.
See TABLE 1. Neau teaches that 6he tire has reduced risk of migration of stones trapped in voids of the tread.
As to claim 1, Neau teaches “W2a” (width of groove at opening portion of groove) = 10.4 mm and “W1a” (width of groove at position of projection portion) = 0.8 mm. Thus, W1a/W2a = 0.077 [0.8 mm/10.4mm = 0.077]. This value of 0.077 falls within claimed range of less than or equal to 0.75. Neau’s pneumatic tire having tire size of 13R22.5 inherently has sidewalls portions, bead portions, carcass layer and belt layer.
As to claim 2, the groove in FIGURE 3 of Neau has a projection on one wall but has no projection portion on the other side wall.
As to claim 3, Neau teaches “Da” = 21.2 mm [10 mm + 11.2 mm = 21.2 mm] and “d1a” = 11.2 mm. Thus, d1a/Da = 0.53 [11.2mm/21.2mm = 0.53]. This value of 0.53 falls within claimed range of 0.10 to 0.70.
As to claim 5, Neau’s EXAMPLE inherently satisfies S1b/S2b < 0.4.
As to claim 8, Neau’s EXAMPLE inherently satisfies S1b/S3b < 0.6.
As to claim 9, Neau teaches “W1b” = 0.4 to 2 mm.
As to claim 10, Neau’s EXAMPLE inherently satisfies W1a [standard ground contact state (100% load)]/W1b [regular state (no load)] < 0.7; it being known that a sipe closes in the footprint. Also, note that Neau teaches an example in which W1b = 0.8 mm [regular state (no load)].
As to claim 12, note comment for claim 3.
6) Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neau (US 2023/0219374) in view of Asano et al (US 2022/0009293).
Neau is considered to anticipate claim 1. IN ANY EVENT: As to claims 1-3, 5,
7-10 and 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Neau’s pneumatic tire for heavy load such that:
the pneumatic tire comprises a tread portion, sidewall portions, bead portions, carcass layer and belt layer [claim 1],
with respect to a state in which the pneumatic tire is mounted on a regular rim and inflated to a regular internal pressure being defined as a regular state, a state in which the pneumatic tire in the regular state is brought into contact with a flat surface and loaded with a load of 100% of a regular load being defined as a standard ground contact state, and when the groove is located in a region directly below ground contact in the standard ground contact state, a groove width W1a of the groove measured at a position of the projection portion and a groove width W2a of the groove measured at a position of an opening portion of the groove satisfying a relationship W1a/W2a < 0.75 [claim 1],
the groove comprises the projection portion projecting into the groove from the one side wall of the pair of side walls but comprises no projection portion on the other side wall [claim 2],
when the groove is located in the region directly below ground contact in the standard ground contact state, a groove depth Da of the groove and a height d1a of the projection portion satisfy a relationship 0.10 < d1a/Da < 0.70
[claims 3 and 12],
in the regular state, a cross- sectional area S2b of the groove from the opening portion of the groove to the projection portion and a cross-sectional area S1b of the groove from the projection portion to the groove bottom satisfy a relationship S1b/S2b < 0.4 [claim 5],
in the regular state, the projection portion has a curved surface at a portion connected to the side wall and a curved surface at a portion connected to the groove bottom and has a bent surface at an end portion in which a surface connected to the side wall and a surface connected to the groove bottom are coupled to each other [claim 7],
in the regular state, a cross- sectional area S3b of the groove from a position of half of a groove depth Db of the groove to the projection portion and a cross-sectional area S1b of the groove from the projection portion to the groove bottom satisfy a relationship S1b/S3b < 0.6 [claim 8],
a groove width W1b of the groove measured at a position of the projection portion in the regular state is 1 mm or more and 8 mm or less [claim 9],
a groove width W1b of the groove measured at a position of the projection portion in the regular state and the groove width W1a of the groove measured at the position of the projection portion in the standard ground contact state satisfy a relationship W1a/W1b < 0.7 [claim 10],
since (1) Neau discloses a pneumatic tire (heavy duty size 13R22.5) having a tread comprising zigzag continuous circumferential grooves having a sipe 32 is provided at the bottom of the groove wherein (A) as can be seen from FIGURE 3, a single projection portion projects into the groove 31 from a side wall of the groove 31 wherein an upper surface of the projection is defined by the groove bottom 311 and a side surface of the projection is defined by the sipe 32, (B) in FIGURE 3, sipe 32 has an enlarged bottom 321 whereas in FIGURE 1, sipe 32 does not have an enlarged bottom, (C) Neau discloses width W11 (groove 31 at top) > 4 mm, width W11 (groove 31 at top) > width W12 (groove 31 at bottom), width W2 (sipe 32) = 0.4-2 mm, depth H1 (groove 31) = 50-200% depth H2 (sipe), and W12/2 > E > W12/6, (D) in an EXAMPLE, Neau discloses W11 = 10.4 mm, W12 = 4 mm, W2 = 0.8 mm, H1 = 10 mm, H2 = 11.2 mm [TABLE 1] and (E) Neau teaches that the tire has reduced risk of migration of stones trapped in voids of the tread; and (2) Asano et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire for heavy load such that the pneumatic tire comprises a tread portion, sidewall portions, bead portions, carcass layer and belt layer; this tire having a regular state and a standard ground contact state.
As to claims 1-3, 5, 7-10 and 12, the following additional comments are made:
As to claim 1: Asano provides ample suggestion to provide Neau’s heavy duty pneumatic tire with the known tire structure (including the belt, carcass and beads). Neau teaches “W2a” (width of groove at opening portion of groove) = 10.4 mm and “W1a” (width of groove at position of projection portion) = 0.8 mm. Thus, W1a/W2a = 0.077 [0.8 mm/10.4mm = 0.077]. This value of 0.077 falls within claimed range of less than or equal to 0.75. Neau’s pneumatic tire having tire size of 13R22.5 inherently has sidewalls portions, bead portions, carcass layer and belt layer.
As to claim 2, the groove in FIGURE 3 of Neau has a projection on one wall but has no projection portion on the other side wall.
As to claim 3, Neau teaches “Da” = 21.2 mm [10 mm + 11.2 mm = 21.2 mm] and “d1a” = 11.2 mm. Thus, d1a/Da = 0.53 [11.2mm/21.2mm = 0.53]. This value of 0.53 falls within claimed range of 0.10 to 0.70.
As to claim 5, Neau’s EXAMPLE inherently satisfies S1b/S2b < 0.4.
As to claim 7, Neau discloses a sipe 32 (narrow groove) at a bottom of a main groove 31 wherein the bottom of the sipe (narrow groove) is curved [FIGURES 1, 3] and Asano et al discloses a narrow groove (width = W1) at a bottom of a main groove 22A wherein a projection portion is defined by the main groove and the narrow groove, [FIGURE 4]; the projection portion has a curved surface at a portion connected to the side wall of the main groove and a curved surface at a portion connected to the groove bottom and has a bent surface at an end portion in which a surface connected to the side wall and a surface connected to the groove bottom are coupled to each other [FIGURE 4].
As to claim 8, Neau’s EXAMPLE inherently satisfies S1b/S3b < 0.6.
As to claim 9, Neau teaches “W1b” = 0.4 to 2 mm.
As to claim 10, Neau’s EXAMPLE inherently satisfies W1a [standard ground contact state (100% load)]/W1b [regular state (no load)] < 0.7; it being known that a sipe closes in the footprint. Also, note that Neau teaches an example in which W1b = 0.8 mm [regular state (no load)].
As to claim 12, note comment for claim 3.
7) Claims 4, 6 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neau (US 2023/0219374) in view of Asano et al (US 2022/0009293) as applied above and in view of Japan 104 (JP 62-015104) and optionally Maehara (US 2014/0130949).
As to claims 4 and 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Neau’s pneumatic heavy duty tire such that
when the groove is located in the region directly below ground contact in the standard ground contact state, a groove depth Da of the groove and a distance Ha from the belt layer to the groove bottom of the groove satisfy a relationship 0.1 < Ha/Da < 0.7 [claim 4],
in the regular state, a sum of a distance Hb from the belt layer to the groove bottom of the groove and a height d1b of the projection portion is 6 mm or more [claim 6]
since (1) Neau teaches providing the pneumatic heavy duty tire such that depth Da of “groove” = H1 +H2 and height d1a, d1b of “projection portion” = H2 wherein H1 =
50-200% H2, (2) Neau discloses an EXAMPLE in which Da = 21.2 mm [H1 + H2 = 10 mm + 11.2 mm = 21.2 mm] and H2 = d1a, d1b = 11.2 mm [H2 = 112% H1]; and (3) Japan 104 teaches providing a pneumatic tire for heavy load having a belt layer and a tread comprising grooves such that thickness D between tread surface and belt layer is 2.5 to 4 times thickness d between bottom of groove and belt layer to improve both low heat build up and durability; tread thickness being 12 to 20 mm [FIGURES 1, 3-4, machine translation] and optionally (3) Maehara teaches providing a pneumatic tire (heavy load tire size 315/80R22.5) having a tread comprising blocks separated by main circumferential grooves having a depth of 10 to 25 mm [paragraph 52].
FOR EXAMPLE: When tread thickness D = 20 mm [Japan 104’s FIGURES 3-4] and D/d = 4 [4 falling within Japan 104’s range of 2.5 to 4], then d = 5 mm (Ha, Hb = 5 mm = 5 mm). When H1 = 10 mm [Neau’s EXAMPLE] and H2 = 50% H1 [50% falling within Neau’s range of 50 to 200%], then H2 = d1a, d1b = 5 mm [10 mm x 50% = 5 mm] and Da = 15 mm [10 mm + 5 mm = 15 mm]. Therefore, Ha/Da = 0.33 [5 mm/15mm=0.33] wherein 0.33 falls within claimed range of 0.1 to 0.7 in claim 4. Also, Hb + d1b = 10 mm [5 mm + 5 mm = 10 mm] wherein 10 mm falls within claimed range of 6 mm or more in claim 6.
As to claims 13-19, note comments for claims 4-10.
8) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neau (US 2023/0219374) in view of Asano et al (US 2022/0009293) as applied above and further in view of Hanya (US 5,450,885).
As to claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Neau’s pneumatic tire such that
when the groove is located in the region directly below ground contact inthe standard ground contact state, the pair of side walls have a shape bulging toward an inner side of the groove
since Hanya teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising circumferential grooves and lateral grooves such that each of the grooves have sidewalls having a shape bulging toward an inner side of the groove to reduce running noise [FIGURES 2, 4, 7, col. 5 lines 4-6].
9) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neau (US 2023/0219374) in view of Asano et al (US 2022/0009293) as applied above and in view of Japan 104 (JP 62-015104) and optionally Maehara (US 2014/0130949) as applied above and further in view of Hanya (US 5,450,885).
As to claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Neau’s pneumatic tire such that
when the groove is located in the region directly below ground contact inthe standard ground contact state, the pair of side walls have a shape bulging toward an inner side of the groove
since Hanya teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising circumferential grooves and lateral grooves such that each of the grooves have sidewalls having a shape bulging toward an inner side of the groove to reduce running noise [FIGURES 2, 4, 7, col. 5 lines 4-6].
Remarks
10) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
11) No claim is allowed.
12) 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.
13) 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
April 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights