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 .
1) In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
2) 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.
3) Claims 1-9 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.
In claim 1 line 2, there is no strict antecedent basis for “the ground”. In claim 1 line 2, it is suggested to change “with the ground” to --with ground--.
Claim 1 line 33 (last line) ambiguously refers to “said external cavity”. Which external cavity? In claim 1 line 33 (last line), it is suggested to change “said external cavity” to --said closest external cavity--.
4) 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.
Orambot
5) Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orambot (US 2023/0398815 or WO 2022/090651) in view of Ishizaka (US 2022/0097456).
US 2023/0398815 and WO 2022/090651 are equivalents.
US 2023/0398815 is available as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2).
WO 2022/090651 is available as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1).
Orambot discloses a pneumatic tire (heavy duty tire size 355/50R22.5) having a tread comprising two adjacent circumferentially extending complex cuts wherein each complex cut comprises alternating external cavities 6 and longitudinal sipes 91 (narrowings) and wherein the longitudinal sipe 91 (narrowing) may be continued radially inwardly by an internal cavity 62. [FIGURES 1-3, 7]. One external cavity 6 is connected to a closest another external cavity 6 by an oblique sipe 92 [FIGURE 1]. The width We of the external cavity 6 is 13.5 mm (falling within the claimed range of at least 6 mm). The width Wi of the oblique sipe is 0.8 mm (falling within the claimed range of at most 2 mm). The heavy duty tire has improved resistance to chunking of oblique sipes opening to external cavities. Orambot is silent as width Ws of the longitudinal sipes 91.
As to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Orambot’s heavy duty pneumatic tire such that the longitudinal sipes 91 (narrowings) have a width Ws of at most 2 mm since Ishizaka teaches a providing a pneumatic tire (heavy duty tire size 315/70R22.5) having a tread comprising complex cuts 21A, 21B each comprising longitudinal sipe 211 (narrowing) and internal cavity 212 [FIGURES 1-4] such that the width Ws of the circumferential narrow groove (longitudinal sipe) is for example 1.0 mm [paragraphs 7, 29]. Thus, it would have been obvious to use a known sipe width (e.g. 1 mm) for the longitudinal sipes of Orambot’s heavy duty pneumatic tire.
FIGURE 1 of Orambot is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
424
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from FIGURE 1 of Orambot, oblique sipe 92 is connected to one external cavity of one complex cut at an intersection I1 in the vicinity of a leading end E1 of the one external cavity of the one complex cut and is connected to another external cavity of another complex cut at an intersection I2 in the vicinity of a trailing end E2 of the another external cavity of the another complex cut. For each complex cut, FIGURE 1 illustrates “distance D” between point of intersection of oblique sipe 92 with external cavity 6 and plane P bisecting the external cavity being about 28% of Length Le of the external cavity 6. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
As to distance D [claim 1], it would have been obvious to provide Orambot’s heavy duty pneumatic tire such that distance D is 25% to 50% length Le [lines 26-33 (last eight lines of claim 1)] since (1) FIGURE 1 of Orambot shows oblique sipe 92 being connected to one external cavity of one complex cut at an intersection I1 in the vicinity of a leading end E1 of the one external cavity of the one complex cut and being connected to another external cavity of another complex cut at an intersection I2 in the vicinity of a trailing end E2 of the another external cavity of the another complex cut and (2) for each complex cut, FIGURE 1 illustrates “distance D” between point of intersection of oblique sipe 92 with external cavity 6 and plane P bisecting the external cavity being about 28% of Length Le of the external cavity 6. Thus, Orambot’s teaching to space the intersection of the oblique sipe 92 from the middle of the external cavity 6 teaches toward and renders obvious distance D being 25% to 50% length Le.
As to claims 2, 3 and 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Orambot’s heavy duty pneumatic tire such that the oblique sipe 92 has a mean inclination angle Am = 10 to 45 degrees [claim 2], the oblique sipe 92 has angle of incidence A1, A2 being at most equal to the mean angle of inclination Am [claim 3], the oblique sipe 92 has mean inclination angle Am = 20 to 35 degrees [claim 9], since Orambot shows the oblique sipe 92 being inclined at a small acute angle with respect to an axial plane P bisecting the external cavity 6 [FIGURE 1].
As to claims 4-5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Orambot’s heavy duty pneumatic tire such that each oblique sipe 92 has constant height Hi [claim 4], each oblique sipe 92 has a height Hi at least equal to height Hs of the longitudinal sipe 91 (narrowing) since Ishizaka teaches a providing a pneumatic tire (heavy duty tire size 315/70R22.5) having a tread comprising complex cuts 21A, 21B each comprising longitudinal sipe 211 (narrowing) and internal cavity 212 [FIGURES 1-4] wherein the complex cuts are connected together by lateral sipes 24 [FIGURE 1, paragraph 30] such that depth of lateral sipe 24 (e.g. width = 1.0 to 2.0 mm) connecting adjacent complex cuts 21 has constant depth being greater than depth of longitudinal sipe 211 (narrowing) [FIGURE 4].
As to claims 6-7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Orambot’s heavy duty pneumatic tire such that each internal cavity has width Wc being at least equal to 5 mm [claim 6], each internal cavity has height Hc being at least 5 mm since Ishizaka teaches a providing a pneumatic tire (heavy duty tire size 315/70R22.5) having a tread comprising complex cuts 21A, 21B each comprising longitudinal sipe 211 (narrowing) and internal cavity 212 [FIGURES 1-4] such that width of internal cavity 212 is 3.0 to 8.0 mm and height of internal cavity 212 is 50% of depth of complex cut wherein Orambot teach providing the complex cut with a depth for example of 14 mm.
Belarbi et al
6) Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belarbi et al (US D833,964) in view of Orambot (US 2023/0398815 or WO 2022/090651) and Ishizaka (US 2022/0097456).
Belarbi et al discloses a tire tread and shows the tread having a tread pattern comprising five circumferential complex cuts wherein each complex cutout comprises alternating longitudinal narrow grooves and external cavities [title, FIGURES 1-5]. An annotated partial copy of FIGURE 2 of Belarbi et al is provided below:
PNG
media_image2.png
492
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Belarbi et al. In the MARKED UP FIGURE, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are complex cuts, A is an external cavity, B is a longitudinal narrow groove and X is an oblique lateral narrow groove. As can be seen from the MARKED UP FIGURE for Belarbi et al, the oblique lateral narrow groove X is connected to one external cavity A of one complex cut 2 at an intersection I1 in the vicinity of a leading end E1 of the one external cavity A of the one complex cut 2 and is connected to another closest external cavity A of another complex cut 3 at an intersection I2 in the vicinity of a trailing end E2 of the another closest external cavity A of the another complex cut 3. Belarbi et al does not recite internal cavities.
As to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pneumatic tire for a heavy duty vehicle such that the pneumatic tire has a tread having a tread pattern as shown by Belarbi et al and such that the narrow longitudinal groove is continues radially inwardly by an internal cavity since (1) Orambot discloses a pneumatic tire (heavy duty tire size 355/50R22.5) having a tread comprising two adjacent circumferentially extending complex cuts wherein each complex cut comprises alternating external cavities 6 and longitudinal sipes 91 (narrowings), wherein the sipe 91 (narrowing) may be continued radially inwardly by an internal cavity 62 and wherein continuity of flow of water is ensured in each complex cut in new state by connection between respective external and internal cavities and wherein the tire has improved resistance to chunking of oblique sipes opening to external cavities [FIGURES 1-3, 7, paragraphs 9-11, 68]. and (2) Ishizaka teaches a providing a pneumatic tire (heavy duty tire size 315/70R22.5) having a tread comprising circumferentially extending complex cuts 21A, 21B each comprising longitudinal sipe 211 (narrowing) and internal cavity 212 wherein the complex cuts are connected together by lateral sipes 24 [FIGURE 1, paragraph 30] to suppress decrease in wet traction performance [FIGURES 1-4, paragraph 7]. Thus, Orambot and Ishizaka provide ample suggestion to provide the longitudinal narrow grooves as longitudinal sipes (narrowings) and to provide the oblique lateral narrow groove X as a lateral sipe. Moreover, Orambot and Ishizaka motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pneumatic tire having Belarbi et al’s tread pattern with the claimed internal cavity to improve wet performance of the tire.
As to dimensions [claim 1], it would have been obvious to provide the external cavities with a width We of at least 6 mm, the longitudinal sipe (narrowing) with a width Ws of at most 2 mm and the lateral sipe with a width Wi of at most 2 mm since (1) Orambot teaches using a width of for example 13.5 mm for an external cavity and using a width for example of 0.8 mm for an oblique sipe and (2) Ishizaka teaches using a width for example of 1 mm for a longitudinal sipe.
As to distance D [claim 1], it would have been obvious to provide the pneumatic tire having Belarbi et al’s tread pattern as modified by Orambot and Ishizaka such that distance D is 25% to 50% length Le [lines 26-33 (last eight lines of claim 1)] since
(1) Belarbi et al shows connecting oblique lateral narrow groove X (which should have a sipe width as per Orambot et al) to one external cavity A of one complex cut 2 at an intersection I1 in the vicinity of a leading end E1 of the one external cavity A of the one complex cut 2 and connecting the oblique lateral narrow groove X (which should have a sipe width as per Orambot et al) to another closest external cavity A of another complex cut 3 at an intersection I2 in the vicinity of a trailing end E2 of the another closest external cavity A of the another complex cut 3. Thus, Belarbi et al’s teaching to space the intersection of the oblique lateral narrow groove X (which should have a sipe width as per Orambot et al) from the middle of the external cavity teaches toward and renders obvious distance D being 25% to 50% length Le.
As to claims 2, 3 and 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pneumatic tire having Belarbi et al’s tread pattern as modified by Orambot and Ishizaka such that the oblique lateral narrow groove X (which should have a sipe width as per Orambot et al) has a mean inclination angle Am = 10 to 45 degrees [claim 2], oblique lateral narrow groove X (which should have a sipe width as per Orambot et al) has angle of incidence A1, A2 being at most equal to the mean angle of inclination Am [claim 3], oblique lateral narrow groove X (which should have a sipe width as per Orambot et al) has mean inclination angle Am = 20 to 35 degrees [claim 9], since Belarbi et al shows the oblique lateral narrow groove X (which should have a sipe width as per Orambot et al) being inclined at a small acute angle with respect to an axial plane P bisecting the external cavity A [MARKED UP FIGURE].
As to claims 4-5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pneumatic tire having Belarbi et al’s tread pattern as modified by Orambot and Ishizaka such that each oblique lateral narrow groove X (which should have a sipe width as per Orambot et al) has constant height Hi [claim 4], each oblique lateral narrow groove X (which should have a sipe width as per Orambot et al) has a height Hi at least equal to height Hs of the longitudinal narrow groove B (which should have a sipe width as per Ishizaka and thereby be a narrowing) since Ishizaka teaches a providing a pneumatic tire (heavy duty tire size 315/70R22.5) having a tread comprising complex cuts 21A, 21B each comprising longitudinal sipe 211 (narrowing) and internal cavity 212 [FIGURES 1-4] wherein the complex cuts are connected together by lateral sipes 24 [FIGURE 1, paragraph 30] such that depth of lateral sipe 24 (e.g. width = 1.0 to 2.0 mm) connecting adjacent complex cuts 21 has constant depth being greater than depth of longitudinal sipe 211 (narrowing) [FIGURE 4].
As to claims 6-7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pneumatic tire having Belarbi et al’s tread pattern as modified by Orambot and Ishizaka such that each internal cavity has width Wc being at least equal to 5 mm [claim 6], each internal cavity has height Hc being at least 5 mm since Ishizaka teaches Ishizaka teaches a providing a pneumatic tire (heavy duty tire size 315/70R22.5) having a tread comprising complex cuts 21A, 21B each comprising longitudinal sipe 211 (narrowing) and internal cavity 212 [FIGURES 1-4] such that width of internal cavity 212 is 3.0 to 8.0 mm and height of internal cavity 212 is 50% of depth of complex cut wherein Orambot teach providing the complex cut with a depth for example of 14 mm.
As to claim 8, all of the circumferential cuts in Belarbi et al are complex cuts.
Remarks
7) The information disclosure statement filed 5-16-25 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Herold (US 2021/0291596) is cited of interest for disclosing a heavy duty vehicle tire having a tread comprising adjacent complex cutouts each comprising alternating sipes and external cavities wherein a sipe 13 connects the vicinity of a leading end of one cavity of one complex cutout to the vicinity of a leading end of a another cavity of an adjacent cutout [FIGURES 4-5].
Djabour et al (US 2021/0347209) is cited of interest for disclosing a pneumatic tire (heavy duty size 315/70R22.5) having a tread comprising a complex cut out comprising alternating longitudinal sipes and external cavities and also comprising internal cavities wherein width of external cavity = 8 mm and width of internal cavity = 8 mm [FIGURES 1-2].
8) No claim is allowed.
9) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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 B Smith (Whatley) 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
May 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights