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
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 1-8 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 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).
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.
Regarding claim 8, as noted above, 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. 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).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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
5. 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.
6. 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