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) A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8-4-26 has been entered.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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
5) Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asano et al (US 2022/0009293).
Asano et al discloses a pneumatic tire (heavy load tire size 11R22.5) having a tread portion, sidewall portions, bead portions, carcass layer and belt layer [FIGURE 1, paragraph 129]. Asano et al describes the tread portion for when the tire is mounted on a specified rim, inflated to specified internal pressure and in an unloaded state [paragraph 51]. In other words, Asano et al describes the tread portion for "REGULAR STATE". The tread portion comprises a circumferential groove. A portion of Asano et al's FIGURE 4, which is a cross sectional view of a center circumferential groove, is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
438
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from FIGURE 4, the circumferential groove comprises a narrow groove a groove bottom 221 between two "projection proportions". The width W1 of the narrow groove is less than or equal to 75% (e.g. 75%) width W of the circumferential groove [paragraph 107, EXAMPLE 9]. Thus, Asano et al discloses W1 = 0.75 W [REGULAR STATE → UNLOADED]. The depth HT of the narrow groove, which equals the height of the projection portion, is 10 to 50% (e.g. 20%) of the depth D of the groove [paragraph 109 , EXAMPLE 9]. Thus, Asano et al teaches HT = 0.2 D [REGULAR STATE → UNLOADED]. The tire prevents stone biting [paragraphs 5, 105, 107, 109, 112].
Claim 22 is anticipated by Asano et al's EXAMPLE 9 tire.
As to claim 22: Asano et al's tire (FIGURE 1, EXAMPLE 9: 11R22.5) inherently satisfies W1a < 0.75 W2a [STANDARD GROUND CONTACT STATE → 100% LOAD] since (1) Asano et al teaches that the width of the narrow groove is less than or equal to 75% (e.g. 75%) of the width of circumferential groove when the tire is inflated and unloaded and (2) one of ordinary skill in the art readily understanding that Asano et al's tire can be used while inflated and under 100% load.
As to claim 22: Asano et al's tire (FIGURE 1, EXAMPLE 9: 11R22.5) inherently satisfies and d1a = 0.10 to 0.323 Da [STANDARD GROUND CONTACT STATE → 100% LOAD] since (1) Asano et al teaches that depth of the narrow groove is 10 to 50% (e.g. 20%) of the depth of the circumferential groove when the tire is inflated and unloaded and (2) one of ordinary skill in the art readily understanding that Asano et al's tire can be used while inflated and under 100% load.
As to claim 22: With respect to "a projection portion projecting into the groove from only one side wall of the pair of walls", the claimed projection portion reads on the left projection portion in Asano et al's FIGURE 4 which projects into the groove 22A only from the left groove walls 22Aa. Claim 22 reads on and fails to exclude another projection portion projecting into the groove from the other side wall of the pair of side walls. Claim 22 merely excludes the recited projection portion (in contrast to another projecting portion) projecting into the groove from both side walls.
Mitsutake
6) Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-12 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsutake (US 4,697,627).
Mitsutake discloses a pneumatic tire (heavy load tire size 10.00R20) comprising tread portion, belt layer and radial carcass layer [col. 1 lines 30-36, col. 2 line 67]. This tire inherently also comprises sidewall portions and bead portions. Mitsutake teaches that the tread comprises a circumferential groove having a pair of side walls and a narrow groove defining a shelf 13 ("projection portion") [FIGURES 1 AND 3]. Mitsutake's FIGURES 2 and 3 reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
384
951
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mitsutake discloses that FIGURE 2 is a sectional view showing the tread portion when it is loaded [col. 1 lines 65-66]. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand from this description and a comparison of FIGURES 1 and 2 that FIGURE 1 shows the tread portion when it is unloaded. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that Mitsutake's tire is inflated. Mitsutake discloses:
width W (circum groove) = 6-10% tread width TW
depth Da (circum depth) = standard depth
depth A (narrow groove) = 20 to 50% depth Da (circum depth)
width B (shelf) = 20-80% width (circum depth)
width B (shelf) = 100-200% width C (narrow groove)
Mitsutake discloses an EXAMPLE TIRE (10.00R20) in which:
width W (circum groove) = 13.0 mm
depth Da (circum groove) = 16.0 mm
depth A (narrow groove) = 3.5 mm
width B (shelf) = 4.0 mm
width B (shelf) / width C (narrow groove) = 1.6.
Therefore:
width C (narrow groove) = 2.5 mm [4.0 mm/1.6 = 2.5 mm];
width C (narrow groove) = 19% width W (circum groove)
[2.5mm/13.0mmx100% = 19%];
depth A (narrow groove) = 22% depth Da (circum groove)
[3.5mm/16.0mmx100% = 22%].
Mitsutake teaches that the tire has grooves which have reduced likelihood of engaging stones and from which stones engaged in can be formed out easily.
As to claim 1, the claimed tire is anticipated by Mitsutake's EXAMPLE tire having tire size 10.00R20, width (circumferential groove) = 13.0 mm, depth Da (circum groove) = 16.0 mm and width (narrow groove) = 2.5 mm.
As to claim 1: Mitsutake's tire (FIGURES 1, 2, 10.00R20) inherently satisfies W1a < 0.75 W2a (W1a < 75% W2a) [STANDARD GROUND CONTACT STATE → 100% LOAD] since (1) Mitsutake discloses an EXAMPLE TIRE having tire size 10.00R20 in which the width of the narrow groove is 19% of the width of circumferential groove [2.5mm/13.0mmx100% = 19%], (2) Mitsutake discloses that FIGURE 2 is a sectional view showing the tread portion when it is loaded [col. 1 lines 65-66]; FIGURE 2 illustrating width of the narrow groove being less than or equal to 75% of the width of the circumferential groove and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that Mitsutake's tire can be used while inflated and under 100% load.
As to claim 1: Mitsutake's tire (FIGURES 1, 2, 10.00R20) inherently satisfies W1b = 2.1 mm to 8 mm [REGULAR STATE → INFLATED + UNLOADED] since
(1) Mitsutake discloses an EXAMPLE TIRE having tire size 10.00R20 in which width of narrow groove = 2.5 mm and (2) one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the tire having the FIGURE 1 groove cross section is unloaded and can be inflated.
As to claim 2: Mitsutake discloses a tire tread having a circumferential groove wherein one side wall has a projection whereas the other side wall has no projection [FIGURE 4 or FIGURE 5].
As to claim 3: Mitsutake's tire (FIGURES 1, 2, 10.00R20) inherently satisfies
d1a = 0.10 to 0.70 Da (d1a = 10 to 70%Da) [STANDARD GROUND CONTACT STATE → 100% LOAD] since (1) Mitsutake discloses an EXAMPLE TIRE having tire size 10.00R20 in which depth (narrow groove) = 22% of the depth of the circumferential groove [3.5mm/16.0mmx100% = 22%], (2) Mitsutake discloses that FIGURE 2 is a sectional view showing the tread portion when it is loaded [col. 1 lines 65-66]; FIGURE 2 illustrating depth of the narrow groove falling within range of 10 to 70% of depth of the circumferential groove and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art readily understanding that Mitsutake's tire can be used while inflated and under 100% load.
As to claims 5 and 8, Mitsutake's tire (FIGURES 1-2, 10.00R20) inherently satisfies AREA S1b < 0.4 AREA S2b [REGULAR STATE → INFLATED + UNLOADED] [claim 5], AREA S1b < 0.64 AREA S3b [REGULAR STATE → INFLATED + UNLOADED] [claim 8] since (1) Mitsutake discloses an EXAMPLE TIRE having tire size 10.00R20 in which width (circum groove) = 13.0 mm, depth Da (circum groove) = 16.0 mm, width C (narrow groove) = 2.5 mm, depth A (narrow groove) = 3.5 mm, angle α, β = 18 degrees with respect to radial direction, angle γ, δ = 0 degrees with respect to radial direction [FIGURE 1] and (2) one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the tire having the FIGURE 1 groove cross section is unloaded and can be inflated.
As to claim 10, Mitsutake's tire (FIGURES 1-2, 10.00R20) satisfies width W1a [STANDARD GROUND CONTACT STATE → 100% LOAD] < 0.7 width W1b [REGULAR STATE → INFLATED + UNLOADED] (W1a under load < 70% W1b unloaded) (1) Mitsutake discloses an EXAMPLE TIRE having tire size 10.00R20 in which width (circum groove) = 13.0 mm, depth Da (circum groove) = 16.0 mm, width C (narrow groove) = 2.5 mm, depth A (narrow groove) = 3.5 mm, angle α, β = 18 degrees with respect to radial direction, angle γ, δ = 0 degrees with respect to radial direction [FIGURE 1], (2) one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the tire having the FIGURE 1 groove cross section is unloaded and can be inflated, (3) one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that Mitsutake's tire can be used while inflated and under 100% load and (4) Mitsutake's FIGURES 1 and 2 indicate that width of narrow groove when tire is under load is less than or equal to 70% width of narrow groove when tire is unloaded.
As to claim 11: Mitsutake's tire (FIGURES 1-2, 10.00R20) inherently satisfies "when the groove is located in the region directly below ground contact in the standard ground contact state, the pair of side walls have a shape bulging toward an inner side of the groove" since (1) Mitsutake discloses that FIGURE 2 is a sectional view showing the tread portion when it is loaded [col. 1 lines 65-66]; FIGURE 2 illustrating side walls of the groove having a shape bulging toward an inner side of the groove and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that Mitsutake's tire can be used while inflated and under 100% load.
As to claim 12, see comment for claim 3.
As to claim 21: With respect to "the projection portion projecting into the groove from only one side wall of the pair of walls", the claimed projecting portion reads on the projecting portion 13 shown in FIGURES 1-2 and fails to exclude other projecting portions. ALTERNATIVELY: Mitsutake discloses a tire tread having a circumferential groove wherein one side wall has a projection whereas the other side wall has no projection [FIGURE 4 or FIGURE 5].
As to claim 22: Mitsutake's tire (FIGURES 1, 2, 10.00R20) inherently satisfies and d1a = 0.10 to 0.323 Da (d1a = 10 to 32.3% Da) [STANDARD GROUND CONTACT STATE → 100% LOAD] since (1) Mitsutake discloses an EXAMPLE TIRE having tire size 10.00R20 in which depth (narrow groove) = 22% of the depth of the circumferential groove [3.5mm/16.0mmx100% = 22%], (2) Mitsutake discloses that FIGURE 2 is a sectional view showing the tread portion when it is loaded [col. 1 lines 65-66]; FIGURE 2 illustrating depth of the narrow groove falling within range of 10 to 32.3% of depth of the circumferential groove and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art readily understanding that Mitsutake's tire can be used while inflated and under 100% load.
As to claim 22: With respect to "a projection portion projecting into the groove from only one side wall of the pair of walls", the claimed projecting portion reads on the projecting portion 13 shown in FIGURES 1-2 and fails to exclude other projecting portions. ALTERNATIVELY: Mitsutake discloses a tire tread having a circumferential groove wherein one side wall has a projection whereas the other side wall has no projection [FIGURE 4 or FIGURE 5].
7) Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-12 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsutake (US 4,697,627) in view of Asano et al (US 2022/0009293) and Japan 699 (JP 2010-052699).
Mitsutake is considered to anticipate claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-12 and 21-22. IN ANY EVENT: As to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-12 and 21-22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Mitsutake's heavy load pneumatic tire (tire size 10.00R20) such that:
(A) the circumferential groove has the FIGURE 1 cross section structure when the pneumatic tire has a REGULAR STATE (i.e. the tire is mounted on a regular rim and inflated to a regular internal pressure [and is unloaded]) and
(B) the circumferential groove has the FIGURE 2 cross section structure when the tire has a STANDARD GROUND CONTACT SURFACE (i.e. the tire is mounted on a regular rim and inflated to a regular internal pressure and is brought into contact with a flat surface and loaded with a load of 100% of a regular load) since
(1) Mitsutake teaches that FIGURE 2 instead of FIGURE 1 shows the tread portion when the tire is loaded,
(2) Asano et al teaches that it known in the tire art to describe tread structure [e.g. FIGURE 4] of a heavy load pneumatic tire (tire size 11R22.5) of a tire when the tire is mounted on a specified rim, inflated to the specified internal pressure and is in an unloaded state [paragraph 51];
(3) Japan 104 teaches that (i) it is known to describe tread structure [FIGURE 1A, machine translation] of a heavy load pneumatic tire [tire size 245/70R19.5] when the tire is inflated to a normal internal pressure and is unloaded and (ii) it is known to use a heavy load pneumatic tire such that the tire is inflated to a normal internal pressure and is loaded with normal load / maximum load [FIGURE 1B, machine translation].
As to claim 7: Mitsutake shows:
(A) an angled corner (bent surface) between a side wall of the groove and an upper surface of the projection portion,
(B) an angled corner (bent corner) between the upper surface of the projection portion and a side surface of the projection portion and
(C) a curved surface between the side surface of the projection portion and the bottom of the narrow groove. See FIGURE 1 of Mitsutake.
As to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Mitsutake's heavy load pneumatic tire such that the circumferential groove has a rounded corner (curved surface) [instead of an angled corner (bent surface)] between a side wall of the groove and an upper surface of the projection portion an angled corner (bent surface) between a side wall of the groove and an upper surface of the projection portion; the resulting Mitsutake's tire thereby satisfying "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" since Asano et al, also directed to heavy load pneumatic tire having a circumferential groove comprising a narrow groove at a bottom thereof, shows providing this groove such that:
(A) an angled corner (bent surface) between a side wall of the groove and an upper surface of the projection portion,
(B) an angled corner (bent corner) between the upper surface of the projection portion and a side surface of the projection portion and
(C) a curved surface between the side surface of the projection portion and the bottom of the narrow groove [FIGURE 4].
8) Claims 4, 6, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsutake (US 4,697,627) in view of Asano et al (US 2022/0009293) and Japan 699 (JP 2010-052699) 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 Mitsutake's heavy load pneumatic 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) Mitsutake teaches groove depth Da = standard depth (e.g. Da = 16 mm) and projection height A = 20 to 50% groove depth Da (e.g. A = 3.5 mm, A = 22% Da), (2) 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 [FIGURE 1, 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 circumferential main grooves having a depth ("standard depth") of 10 to 25 mm [paragraph 52].
As to claims 13-17 and 19-20, see comments for claims 4-8 and 10-11.
Remarks
9) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
Applicant's arguments filed 8-4-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claim 22, applicant's arguments regarding Asano et al are not persuasive. With respect to "a projection portion projecting into the groove from only one side wall of the pair of walls", the claimed projection reads on the left projection portion in Asano et al's FIGURE 4 which projects into the groove 22A only from the left groove walls 22Aa. Claim 22 reads on and fails to exclude another projection portion projecting into the groove from the other side wall of the pair of side walls. Claim 22 merely excludes the recited projection portion (in contrast to another projecting portion) projecting into the groove from both side walls.
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
September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights