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 § 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 1-6 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 single land or combination of lands among the plurality of lands forming a first recess among the recesses and including a first protrusion" (lines 9-10), "the single land or combination of lands among the plurality of lands forming a second recess among the recesses and including a second protrusion" (lines 13-14), and "the first protrusion and the second protrusion alternating in the tire circumferential direction and forming therebetween a center main groove . . ., the center main groove having a zigzag shape" (last 3 lines). It is unclear how the limitations can be satisfied with "the single land." The recitation of alternating first and second protrusions forming a zigzag center main groove would appear to require at least two land portions separated by the zigzag center main groove.
Claim 2 recites "at least some of the lands include the recesses, at least one of the first protrusion, and second land ends" and "the second land ends being connected to one tire-circumferential end of the respective recess and serving as the land end in the tire circumferential direction." Examiner notes that claim 1 recites "recesses" which include a "first recess" and a "second recess" and the recesses are "indented in a tire axial direction from wall surfaces of first land ends." It is unclear what is meant by the second land ends "serving as the land end," particularly in combination with the rest of the claim limitation. Claim 1 already recites the recesses as indented from first land ends. It is unclear how the second land end differs from the first land end. If they are intended to be opposite sides of a land portion, then the references to "the recesses" and "the respective recess" are confusing in view of claim 1's description of first/second recesses and the first land end. Are the second land end-connected recesses referred to the first/second recesses of claim 1 or additional recesses on the opposite side of the land? Examiner notes that the instant specification refers to U6 and V6 as the second land ends--which are completely separate from the recesses indented from the first land ends J1 and K1.
Claim 4 recites "the recess" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites recesses, a first recess, and a second recess.
Claim 6 recites "the tread includes a shoulder land . . . and an inner land provided inside of the shoulder land in the tire axial direction . . ., the recesses and the first land ends are provided on a side of the inner land adjacent the shoulder main groove." Claim 1 recites the recesses include first recesses and second recesses that are indented in first and second directions in the tire axial direction. It is unclear whether "the recesses" refers to all recesses, first recesses, or second recesses. It appears the second recesses are intended to be on a second shoulder main groove rather than the same shoulder main groove as the first recesses.
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 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2014/0238567) in view of Tagashira (EP 602989).
Regarding claim 1, Iwasaki discloses a pneumatic tire with a tread including a plurality of main grooves and a plurality of lands ([0006], Fig. 1; see main grooves 3, 4 and lands 6), wherein
at least some of the lands are shaped such that land ends and recesses are arranged in a tire circumferential direction with a single land or a combination of the lands among the plurality of lands, the recesses being indented in a tire axial direction from wall surfaces of first land ends among the land ends, the wall surfaces facing the tire axial direction, (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
the single land or the combination of the lands among the plurality of lands forming a first recess among the recesses and including a first protrusion, the first recess being indented in a first direction in the tire axial direction, the first protrusion protruding substantially in the first direction in the tire axial direction, the first protrusion having a V shape (see annotated Fig. 1 below; the protrusion is considered to have a V-shape in the same manner as the instant invention where the protrusions have two oppositely inclined portions connected by a circumferential segment),
the single land or the combination of the lands among the plurality of lands forming a second recess among the recesses and including a second protrusion, the second recess being indented in a second direction in the tire axial direction opposite from the first direction, the second protrusion protruding substantially in the second direction in the tire axial direction, the second protrusion having a V shape (see annotated Fig. 1 below), and
the first protrusion and the second protrusion alternating in the tire circumferential direction and forming therebetween a center main groove among the main grooves, the center main groove having a zigzag shape (the first and second protrusions alternated in the circumferential direction and form zigzag center main groove 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Iwasaki does not disclose round chamfers that are arc-shaped in cross section formed on tops of the wall surfaces of at least some of the land ends. 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 tops of the wall surfaces with arc-shaped round chamfers since Tagashira, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches providing arc-shaped chamfers on the outer edges of all grooves within the tread to reduce tire noise and to prevent drifting by reducing an increase in conicity force with wear(col 5, lines 54-col 6, line 15; col 4, line 17-22).
Regarding claim 2, Iwasaki discloses recesses provided on each side of the land portions and a second land end can be construed as connected on either side. Regarding round chamfers that are arc-shaped in cross section being formed on a top of a wall surface of the first land end and a top of a wall surface of the second land end, Tagashira discloses providing arc-shaped chamfers on the top of all groove wall surfaces within the tread pattern to reduce noise (col 5, lines 54-57).
Regarding claim 3, Iwasaki discloses the plurality of main grooves includes a pair of shoulder main grooves on both ends in the tire axial direction (see shoulder main grooves 3),
at least one shoulder main groove of the pair of the shoulder main grooves includes a pair of the wall surfaces on both sides in the tire axial direction, the single or the plurality of lands constituting at least one of the wall surfaces are shaped such that the recesses and the first land ends serving as the land ends connected to one tire-circumferential ends of the recesses are alternately arranged in the tire circumferential direction (see annotated Fig. 1 below in an alternative claim mapping).
PNG
media_image2.png
489
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding round chamfers that are arc-shaped in cross section being formed on the tops of the wall surfaces of at least some of the land ends, as discussed above, Tagashira discloses providing arc-shaped chamfers on the top of all groove wall surfaces within the tread pattern to reduce noise (col 5, lines 54-57).
Regarding claim 5, Iwasaki discloses a shoulder land disposed at a position including a ground contacting end (see shoulder portion 5), and an inner land provided inside the shoulder land in the tire axial direction (see middle portion 6), the tread further including a shoulder main groove disposed between the shoulder land and the inner land (see shoulder main groove 3), and the first protrusion and at least one of the second land ends are provided on a side of the inner land opposite from the shoulder main groove (see annotated Fig. 1 above, the first protrusion and second land end are provided on the center main groove side of middle portion 6).
Regarding claim 6, Iwasaki discloses a shoulder land disposed at a position including a ground contacting end (see shoulder portion 5), and an inner land provided inside the shoulder land in the tire axial direction (see middle portion 6), the tread further including a shoulder main groove disposed between the shoulder land and the inner land (see shoulder main groove 3), and the recesses and the first land ends are provided on the inner land adjacent the shoulder main groove (see annotated Fig. 1 under discussion of claim 3, the recess and first land end are provided on the shoulder main groove side).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2014/0238567) in view of Tagashira (EP 602989) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Yamakawa (US 2016/0214438).
Regarding claim 4, Iwasaski discloses at least some of the lands are a plurality of shoulder blocks that are located at positions including a ground contacting end on at least one side in the tire axial direction and are arranged in the tire circumferential direction, the plurality of shoulder blocks includes first blocks and second blocks that are alternately arranged in the tire circumferential direction (see annotated Fig. 1 below), the first blocks and the second blocks having one of the first land ends, each of the second blocks having the recess indented in the tire axial direction from a wall surface of the first land end (see notch in land ends of the blocks), the wall surface facing outward in the tire axial direction.
PNG
media_image3.png
477
776
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Iwasaki does not disclose round chamfers that are arc-shaped in cross section formed on tops of the outward facing wall surfaces of the shoulder blocks. 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 tops of the wall surfaces with arc-shaped round chamfers since Yamakawa, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches providing rounded corner portions on the outer edges of the shoulder blocks wherein the rounded corners' radii of curvature vary depending on the block widths to enhance snow performance and rut performance, to reduce a difference in ground reaction force, and to enhance tire uniformity ([0012-0014,0027-0029, 0054,0056]). Examiner notes that Iwasaki's blocks are shown to have different circumferential widths and that it is conventional to vary block widths to reduce tire pattern noise (see Yamakawa, [0070]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laciga (CS 228798, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Laciga discloses a tire with a tread comprising a plurality of main grooves and a plurality of lands (see Fig. 1 with lands 8 and main grooves 3, 7), wherein
at least some of the lands are shaped such that land ends and recesses are arranged in a tire circumferential direction with a single land or a combination of the lands among the plurality of lands, the recesses being indented in a tire axial direction from wall surfaces of first land ends among the land ends, the wall surfaces facing the tire axial direction (see shoulder blocks 8 with recesses indented in a tire axial direction--see transverse grooves 10 in Fig. 1 which form a recess in the sidewall of the shoulder blocks as seen in Fig. 2), and round chamfers that are arc-shaped in cross section are formed on tops of the wall surfaces of at least some of the first land ends (see rounded shoulder edges, which are arc shaped in cross section, Fig. 2),
at least some of the lands are a plurality of shoulder blocks that are located at positions including a ground contacting end on at least one side in the tire axial direction and are arranged in the tire circumferential direction (see V-shaped shoulder blocks 8),
the plurality of shoulder blocks includes first blocks and second blocks that are alternately arranged in the tire circumferential direction, each of the first blocks and the second blocks having one of the first land ends (see alternating V-shaped shoulder blocks 8 in Fig. 1),
the first blocks including no recess indented in the tire axial direction from a wall surface of the one of the first land ends at an outer portion in a tire radial direction (see blocks where there is no transverse groove 8 in the outer wall), and
each of the second blocks having a recess indented in the tire axial direction from the wall surface of the one of the first land ends at the outer portion in the tire radial direction, the wall surface of the one of the first land ends facing outward in the tire axial direction (see shoulder blocks having a transverse groove 10 which is indented inwards from the outwardly facing block wall; these transverse grooves are indented axially inwards as seen in Fig. 2)
a round chamfer that is arc-shaped in cross section is formed on a top of the wall surface of the one of the first land ends of the first blocks (see rounded shoulder edges, which are arc shaped in cross-section, Fig. 2).
Laciga does not expressly disclose whether the tire is pneumatic or not; 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 tire as pneumatic since Examiner takes Official Notice that pneumatic tires are extremely well known and conventional tire constructions. One would have been motivated to employ a well-known type of tire construction known to be suitable for forming a tire body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Iwasaki does not disclose any zigzag shaped center main groove or a V-shaped first protrusion and V-shaped second protrusion alternating in the tire circumferential direction forming a zigzag shaped center main groove.
Examiner disagrees. Iwasaki discloses "center main grooves 4" ([0030]). The main grooves zigzag back and forth with a trapezoidal wave similar to the instant invention's center main groove. The first and second protrusions are considered to have a V-shape in the same manner as the instant invention where the protrusions have two oppositely inclined portions connected by a circumferential segment.
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 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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
Prosecution Insights