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 Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 is grammatically awkward:
Line 3, "direction, and the second block that protrudes outward" should be --direction, and the second block protrudes outward--
Lines 5-6, "both ends of the second block in the tire circumferential direction are placed inward in the first block from the wall surfaces o78f the two first blocks" Examiner suggests:
--each end of the second block in the tire circumferential direction are placed inward in a corresponding first block from the wall surfaces of the two first blocks--
Line 9, "the shallow groove that is provided" should be --the shallow groove is provided--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “formed like thin lines” in line 4. The term "thin" is a relative term and it is unclear as to what constitutes a "thin line" versus a 'not-thin' line. This ambiguity is further compounded by the use of "like" which implies a broader scope. It is unclear as to what structure applicant intends to cover by the recitation of "like thin lines." Examiner suggests reciting: --the ground contacting surfaces of at least some of the lands have sipes--.
Claim 7 recites "includes the two first blocks" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 5 recites "a first block" rather than "two first blocks." Examiner suggests claim 7 recite --includes two first blocks--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JPH07-040713, with English machine translation) in view of Mori (US 20020053382).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a pneumatic tire with a tread including a plurality of grooves and a plurality of lands (see circumferential grooves 1, transverse grooves 6, and block rows 2 in Fig. 2; [0013]; pneumatic [0001]); , wherein
the ground contacting surfaces of at least some of the lands have sipes that are formed like thin lines when viewed from outside in a tire radial direction (see sipes 3 in block rows 2), and
a groove is provided with an end edge at a position within 10 mm of the sipe (sipes are spaced a distance L of 5mm, see Fig. 1, [0007]; also, sipes extend to the edges of circumferential grooves and are thus within 10 mm of the edge).
Watanabe does not disclose the end edge being connected to a round chamfer that is arc-shaped in cross section. It would have been obvious, however, to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the groove edges with round chamfer since in the same field of endeavor of tire treads, Mori discloses providing arc shaped chamfered portions on all the end peripheries of blocks to even contact pressure distribution, thereby improving driving stability or braking ability of the tire ([0006,0007]).
Regarding claim 2, the circumferential sipe runs parallel to the circumferential groove edges (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, the sipe has depth 56% of the main groove (5 mm sipe depth, 9 mm main groove depth)(see Fig. 1 and [0007]) and separates the lands (separates the central block part and narrow side parts).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diensthuber (EP 0547019) in view of Mori (US 20020053382).
Regarding claim 1, Diensthuber discloses a pneumatic tire with a tread including a plurality of grooves and a plurality of lands (see circumferential grooves 3, transverse grooves 5, and block rows 2 in Fig. 2; [0013]; as to being pneumatic, Diensthuber discloses the tire is under pressure, [0013]); , wherein
the ground contacting surfaces of at least some of the lands have sipes that are formed like thin lines when viewed from outside in a tire radial direction (see sipes 6 in middle block rows), and
a groove is provided with an end edge at a position within 10 mm of the sipe (sipes extend to the edges of circumferential grooves and are thus within 10 mm of the edge).
Diensthuber does not disclose the end edge being connected to a round chamfer that is arc-shaped in cross section. It would have been obvious, however, to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the groove edge with round chamfer since in the same field of endeavor of tire treads, Mori discloses providing arc shaped chamfered portions on all the end peripheries of blocks to even contact pressure distribution, thereby improving driving stability or braking ability of the tire ([0006,0007]).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diensthuber (EP 0547019, with English machine translation) in view of Mori (US 20020053382) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuchs (WO 2024/041706, with English machine translation).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the sipe extends parallel to transverse and circumferential groove portions (see Fig. 2) and the sipe is U-shaped and surrounds a portion of blind groove 7 ([0014]). As to whether those groove portions are within 10 mm and include the round chamfer, Examiner notes that Mori discloses providing the round chamfer on all land peripheries ([0007]). Diensthuber does not expressly disclose the distance between the sipe and parallel portions of the groove as being less than 10 mm; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the sipe position as within 10mm of the groove edge since Fuchs, similarly directed towards a tire tread with sipes, teaches positioning sipes within the block at a distance of 3 to 10 mm in front of a groove edge to improve circumferential and transverse stiffness of the central profile blocks and to improve handling characteristics (pg 3, lines 4-21; pg 11, lines 12-32).
Regarding claim 4, Diensthuber discloses a main groove (see circumferential grooves). While Diensthuber does not expressly disclose the depth of the sipes relative to the main groove, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the depth as 40% of more of a maximum depth of the main groove since Fuchs, similarly directed towards a tire tread with sipes, teaches configuring sipe (notch/cut 19) with depth of at least 3 mm and at most 100% of the profile depth (pgs 2-3, 11), said depth overlapping the claimed range. One would have been motivated to adjust the sipe depth to control circumferential and transverse stiffness in the central profile blocks (bottom pg 2-top pg 3).
The sipe separates the lands (inner and outer U-shaped block parts, see annotated figure below).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diensthuber (EP 0547019, with English machine translation) in view of Mori (US 20020053382) and Fuchs (WO 2024/041706, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimishima (US 20030226629).
Regarding claim 5, the land on which the sipe is formed (see middle block row 2) includes a first block having a recessed shape provided (outer U-shaped portion) on one side of the sipe and a second block (inner U-shaped portion) that is provided on the other side of the sipe and has an insertion portion located inside the recessed shape of the first block (see annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
182
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Diensthuber discloses a blind groove provided on a side remote from the sipe, but is silent regarding the blind groove's depth. In the same field of endeavor of tire treads, Kimishima discloses a tread pattern having blind transverse grooves 10,11 extending within middle blocks (see Figs. 1, 2a). Kimishima teaches configuring the blind grooves with depth that is substantially the same as the lateral main grooves (lateral grooves are 50% to 70% of main groove depth to reduce pumping sound without deteriorating drainage, [0039]) and with depth that decreases towards its closed end to provide rigidity for the tread element ([0057]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the blind grooves of Diensthuber as shallow grooves having depth shallower than the maximum depth of the main groove since Kimishima, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches configuring blind transverse grooves with depth of 50-70% of the main groove depth and with decreasing depth towards their closed end to reduce noise and improve block rigidity ([0039,0057]).
As to the shallow grooves having a round chamfer, Examiner notes that the modification by Mori set forth above provided chamfers on all grooves. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the sipe position as within 10mm of the groove edge since Fuchs, similarly directed towards a tire tread with sipes, teaches positioning sipes within the block at a distance of 3 to 10 mm in front of a groove edge to improve circumferential and transverse stiffness of the central profile blocks and to improve handling characteristics (pg 3, lines 4-21; pg 11, lines 12-32).
Regarding claim 6, the second block is a rib that protrudes outward in the tire radial direction and includes a U-shaped ground contacting surface provided on an outer surface in the tire radial direction (the second block identified above has a U-shape between the U-shaped sipe and the blind groove). The shallow groove (blind groove) is provided inside and recessed from the ground contacting surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to further teach or suggest the arrangement of two first blocks, second block, and shallow groove as recited in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619