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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 5, 2026 has been entered.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreier (DE 102019217511, of record) and further in view of Yurchenco (US 213/0162211, newly cited), Matsuda (US 5,457,141, newly cited), Mori (US 5,439,714, newly cited), and/or Blaudschun (DE 19950512, newly cited).
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 preferred range is 0.2 mm and 0.6 mm for the projection height 11 and a depth or height 12 of said concavity is between 0.5 and 1.2 times a depth or height 11 of said projections.
Additionally, flanks 13 correspond with the claimed conical barrel portion, respective projections project from a reference surface 4, and an outermost portion (top of projections) corresponds with the claimed outer edge portion.
With further respect to claim 1, the lower limit of 0.5 times a depth or height 11 is seen to correspond with a preferred embodiment in that such a depth is described as being “ideal” for improving the contrast properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use additional depths that are extremely close to the lower limit identified above, there being no conclusive showing of unexpected results for a depth equal to or greater than 0.3 times a depth or height and less than 0.5 times a depth or height 11 (Figure 7 fails to include any examples that correspond with the claimed arrangement). In such an instance, depths that are slightly below 0.5 times a depth or height 11 would still provide contrast properties, although they might not be characterized as “ideal” or preferred. Also, MPEP 2144.05 states 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a tire of Dreier with the claimed combination of projection heights and ratio between concavity depth and projection height given the significant overlap and similarities in individual parameters (as compared with that required by the claims).
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Dreier teaches a height 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. It is emphasized that the disclosure of at least 0.1 mm full encompasses the claimed range between 1 mm and 1.4 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include heights between 1.0 mm and 1.4 mm absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (depth ratios and heights are varied between examples in Figure 7 such that there is no evidence that any realized benefits are directly attributable to heights between 1.0 mm and 1.4 mm).
Lastly, with respect to claim 1, while the figures of Dreier depict truncated assemblies (Figures 3 and 4) and assemblies that terminate at a single point or vertex (non-truncated), a fair reading of Dreier does not suggest the exclude use of a point when using non-truncated assemblies. It is extremely well known and conventional that non-truncated assemblies in a multitude of applications are commonly formed with a variety of shapes, including rounded shapes (corresponds with claimed hemispherical shape) and single points. Yurchenco (Paragraph 40), Matsuda (Column 6, Lines 24-32), Mori (Column 5, Lines 5-14), and Blaudschun (Abstract) recognize the known use of rounded tips as alternatives to sharp tips in a multitude of applications. It is emphasized that a fair reading of Dreier does not suggest the exclusive use of sharp points- one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the apex or vertex of the concavities in Dreier with a shape in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. The general disclosure of non-truncated assemblies would have been recognized as encompassing an apex or vertex having a sharp tip or a rounded tip.
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 13 do not intersect with a base area along a straight line).
With respect to 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 (example 3 includes a flat plane in the outer edge portion and thus constitutes a non-inventive example, while demonstrating greater molding accuracy as compared with inventive example 2 comprising a curved plane and a radius in accordance to the claims).
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 multiple parameters that are varied as compared with inventive examples and thus, it is unclear if any realized benefits are solely a function of, for example, a projection height of at least 0.6 mm).
As to claims 6 and 7, while Dreier fails to expressly teach a relationship between a flank 13 of 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 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 states that Dreier repeatedly emphasizes relatively deep concavity structures and relatively small projection heights as “preferred” for achieving the disclosed light-capturing and contrast-improving properties. It is well taken, though, 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. Furthermore, contrary to Applicant’s argument, modifying Dreier to adopt the claimed geometry and dimensional relationship is not inconsistent with Dreier’s stated design objectives (nothing in Dreier teaches away from using a non-preferred embodiment, wherein the mere presence of concavities would promote the stated design objectives).
Conclusion
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 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights