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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakamoto (US 20200361246).
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto discloses a tire ([0021]) comprising:
a plurality of main grooves extending in a tire circumferential direction (see pair of main grooves 10, Fig. 2); and
a plurality of land portions defined and formed by the plurality of main grooves (see land portions 11, 12);
the plurality of main grooves comprising a first center main groove and a second center main groove adjacent to each other with a tire equatorial plane interposed between the first center main groove and the second center main groove (see pair of main grooves 10, Fig. 2),
the plurality of land portions comprising a center land portion defined and formed by the first center main groove and the second center main groove (see center land portion 11, [0025]),
the first center main groove having a zigzag shape formed by alternately connecting a long portion and a short portion (grooves are zigzag with long portion and short portion, [0024]) ,
the second center main groove having a bent shape formed by connecting a first groove portion having a circumferential length L31, a second groove portion having a circumferential length L32, and a third groove portion having a circumferential length L33 (grooves have a bent shape, e.g., at 10A), and
the circumferential lengths L31 to L33 of the first groove portion to the third groove portion having a relationship L31>L32≥L33 (see annotated Fig. 2, wherein the grooves clearly have three portions of different lengths that satisfy the inequality).
PNG
media_image1.png
752
932
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the length of the long portion in the first center main groove is clearly more than 60% of the pitch length of the zigzag (long + short portion lengths) and less than 100%.
Regarding claim 4, the first groove portion and the second/third portions are inclined in mutually opposite directions in the tire circumferential direction (first inclined to right, second/third incline to left, see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 5, the first groove portion is inclined in identical direction in the tire circumferential direction with respect to the long portion (both incline to the right).
Regarding claim 9, the pitch length of the bent shape is the same as the pitch length of the zigzag shape (P3/P2 = 1).
Regarding claim 11, the amplitude of the bent shape is the same as the amplitude of the zigzag shape (A3/A2 = 1).
Regarding claim 12, the center land portion comprises first center lug grooves and second center lug grooves that are inclined in mutually opposite directions (see annotated figure above).
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 3, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (US 20200361246) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ninomiya (US 20170210176).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Sakamoto does not disclose the amplitude of the zigzag as claimed; 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 zigzag with amplitude of 1.4 to 1.9 times the groove width or 0.55 to 0.95 times the groove width since Ninomiya, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches configuring the maximum amplitude in the tire axial direction of a zigzag main groove to be not greater than 3.0 times the maximum groove width of the zigzag main groove to prevent deterioration of steering stability and uneven wear ([0014,0055]), said range overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claims 6-8, Sakamoto does not expressly disclose the lengths of the groove portions of the center zigzag grooves; 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 grooves with lengths as claimed since (1) Sakamoto clearly illustrates the zigzag groove structures with portions having lengths that are well within the claimed range (see Fig. 2 with first, second, and third portions identified in annotated figure above); and (2) Ninomiya discloses adjusting zigzag segment lengths to increase the length of edges effectively while suppressing the deformation of the land region adjacent thereto, with edges providing increased traction performance ([0050-0053])--thus one would have been motivated to optimize the segment lengths to improve traction and deformation performance. The first portion clearly has a length that is slightly greater than half the pitch length of the zigzag, the second portion clearly has a length that is less than half the pitch length, and the third portion clearly has a length that is small but substantial enough to be clearly more than 5% of the pitch length. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art and drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. MPEP 2125.
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, 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