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
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreier (DE 102019217511, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 1-4, Dreier is directed to a tire construction comprising a plurality of projections 5 on sidewall regions 2, wherein respective projections are defined by a concavity 8 having an inverted conical or pyramid geometry (emphasis on Figures 2-4). Dreier further states that a depth or height 12 of said concavity can be as large as 1.2 times a depth or height 11 of said projections. With further respect to the structure of said projections, (a) flanks 13 correspond with the claimed conical barrel portion and (b) respective projections project from a reference surface 5.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, Dreier states that concavity depths greater than 1.2 times a projection height do not bring “significant” improvements in contrast properties. This language fails to teach away from using ratios greater than 1.2 and in fact, the aforementioned language appears to suggest that equal or slightly superior contrast properties (properties that would not deemed to be “significant”) would be realized when using ratios greater than 1.2 and in accordance to the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use ratios of 1.4, for example, given that they are close to the upper end of the preferred or disclosed range and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed ratios (Examples 2 and 3 in Figure 7 are non-inventive examples and demonstrate superior lightness index values, as compared with inventive Examples 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 2, Figure 4 depicts an outer edge portion formed into a curved plane (base area 91 of concavity is curved or circular, as opposed to a square portion in Figure 3, and flanks do not intersect with a base area along a straight line).
Regarding claim 3, while Dreier fails to expressly teach a radius of curvature R as defined by Applicant in Figure 5, Dreier does suggest an included angle that can be as small as 5 degrees and as large as 50 degrees and such a range of included angles is seen to correspond with the claimed range of curvatures. It is further noted that Dreier teaches heights as large as 0.6 mm and such is consistent with the inventive heights taught by Applicant. Thus, it reasons that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the curvatures of Dreier in accordance to the claimed invention. It is emphasized that small curvatures appear to correspond with small included angles (as taught by Dreier) and the general order of dimensions in Dreier mimics that of the claimed invention. Lastly, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed curvatures (lone comparative example has a ratio H2/H1 that is less than 1 and such is inconsistent with the express disclosure of Dreier to form ratios greater than 1 and as high as 1.2- any realized benefits might simply be a function of including ratios greater than 1).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, the claimed angles would have been obvious given that an included angle 14 is between 5 and 50 degrees. It is emphasized that small included angles appear to correspond with large angles defined by the conical barrel portion (flanks 13) and a reference surface 4). Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed inclination angles (lone comparative example has a ratio H2/H1 less than 1 and thus, it is unclear if any realized benefits are a function of said ratio and/or inclination angle θ).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Dreier teaches a preferred range between 0.2 mm and 0.6 mm for the projection height.
As to claims 8 and 9, while Dreier fails to expressly teach a relationship between a flank 13of the conical barrel portion (outer surface that extends toward reference surface 5 in a diverging manner) and a flank 13 of the concavity (inner surface that extends toward a reference surface 5 in a converging manner), it appears that respective flanks can be symmetrical with one another, specifically since an included angle 14 can vary between 5 and 50 degrees (see modified figure below). It is emphasized that the exact geometry of the conical barrel portions and the concavity are not limited, as evidenced by the different geometries depicted in Figures 2-4- one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form respective flanks with the same inclination angle absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
PNG
media_image1.png
603
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Dreier teaches projection heights of at least 0.1 mm, preferably between 0.2 mm and 0.6 mm. It is well taken that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Looking at the table in Figure 7, the projection height and concavity depth are varied between examples such that it is unclear if any realized benefits are attributable to the claimed projection height.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) February 6, 2026 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 3, 2026