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 4, 7, 11-12 and 19-20 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.
As to claims 4, 11 and 12, it is unclear what additional limitation is being claimed. The description of "gradually increases / gradually decreases" does not appear to narrow "roughly rhombic".
As to claims 7, 19 and 20, each of these claims is indefinite because "the narrow sipe section is a flat sipe" (claims 7, 19 and 20) is inconsistent with "the narrow sipe section is a three-dimensional sipe that extends while bending in the depth direction" (claim 1).
4) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5) Claims 7, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 7, 19 and 20, the subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention (i.e. the new matter) is THE COMBINATION OF "the narrow sipe section is a three-dimensional sipe that extends while bending in the depth direction" (claim 1) AND
"the narrow sipe section is a flat sipe" (claims 7, 19 and 20). The original disclosure describe the narrow sipe section being a flat sipe or a three-dimensional sipe instead of a flat sipe and a three-dimensional sipe.
6) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
7) Claims 4, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 4, 11 and 12 fail to further limit claim 1 because the subject matter described in claims 4, 11 and 12 ("gradually increases / gradually decreases") is required by the subject matter of "roughly rhombic" in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
8) 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.
9) Claims 1-4, 7, 9-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankar et al (US 2024/0025212) in view of Japan 842 (JP 2013-126842).
Sankar et al discloses a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising blocks (land portions) separated by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves [FIGURE 1]. The tread includes shoulder block rows (outermost land portions) comprising shoulder blocks comprising recess 4 wherein the recess 4 comprises a sipe portion 6 and a groove portion 7 [FIGURES 2-5, 6A-6B,16, 20, 21A-21C]. FIGURE 16 of Sankar et al is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
318
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from FIGURE 16, the sipe portion is a three-dimensional sipe that extends while bending in the depth direction. Maximum width Wg of the groove portion is greater than width Ws of the sipe portion [FIGURES 2, 6A, 16, 21A, TABLE 3]. The tread has a non-skid depth NSD = 6 to 10 mm. The recess 4 has a depth B = 50 to 100% non skid depth NSD. The sipe portion has a width Ws = 0.4 to 1.4 mm. The sipe portion has a depth Ds such as 1.5 to 4 mm. The groove portion has a depth E such as 2 to 6 mm. FIGURE 2 illustrates the groove portion having a depth (extension length in radial direction) greater than a depth (extension length in radial direction) of the sipe portion. The tire retains wet performance after wear. Sankar et al does not recite "roughly rhombic".
Japan 842 discloses a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising a land portion having a recess wherein the recess comprises a narrow sipe portion 20 and a widened section 24 [FIGURES 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, machine translation]. Japan 842 teaches that the widened section 24 may have different cross sectional shapes [FIGURES 12A-12H,
13I-13O, machine translation]. FIGURE 12F of Japan 842 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
215
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from FIGURE 12F, the widened section 24 has a roughly rhombic cross sectional shape. Furthermore, FIGURE 12F illustrates the widened section 24 having straight radial outer edges each inclined at an angle of about 55 degrees with respect to a width direction and straight radial inner edges each inclined at an angle of about 55 degrees with respect to the width direction. Japan 842 teaches that the tire has enhanced water discharging property [machine translation].
As to claims 1-3 and 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Sankar et al's FIGURE 16 recess such that:
each of the tire radial outer edges extends at an inclination angle of 30 to 70° with respect to a width direction in a cross-section perpendicular to an extending direction of the sipe and such that the widened section is roughly rhombic in cross-sectional view [claim 1],
each of the tire radial outer edges extends at an inclination angle of 40 to 65° with respect to the width direction in a cross-section perpendicular to the extending direction of the sipe [claim 2],
each of the tire radial inner edges extends at an inclination angle of 30 to 60° with respect to the width direction in a cross-section perpendicular to the extending direction of the sipe [claims 3, 10]
since Japan 842, also directed to a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising a land portion comprising a recess comprising a narrow sipe section and a widened section for improving drainage, teaches using a roughly rhombic cross section for the widened section [FIGURE 12F] as an alternative to other cross sections for the widened section [FIGURES 12A-12E, 12G-12H, FIGURES 13I-13O] wherein FIGURE 12F illustrates the widened section 24 having straight radial outer edges each inclined at an angle of about 55 degrees with respect to a width direction and straight radial inner edges each inclined at an angle of about 55 degrees with respect to the width direction.
As to depth (extension length in tire radial direction) of the widened section
[claim 1], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Sankar et al's FIGURE 16 recess as modified by Japan 842 such that depth (extension length in tire radial direction) of the widened section is longer than depth (extension length in tire radial direction) of the narrow sipe section since (1) Sankar et al teaches that the sipe portion (narrow sipe section) has a depth Ds such as 1.5 to 4 mm and the groove portion (widened section) has a depth E such as 2 to 6 mm and (2) FIGURE 2 of Sankar et al illustrates the groove portion having a depth (extension length in radial direction) greater than a depth (extension length in radial direction) of the sipe portion.
As to claim 9, Sankar et al teaches providing the recess comprising a narrow sipe section and widened section in an outermost land portion (shoulder block) defined by a tread edge and a circumferential groove [FIGURE 1].
As to claims 4 and 11-12, note the roughly rhombic cross section for a widened section disclosed by Japan 842 [FIGURE 12F].
As to claims 7 and 19-20, note the three dimensional narrow sipe section disclosed by Sankar et al.
Remarks
10) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 7, 9-12 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
11) No claim is allowed.
12) 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.
13) 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
October 3, 2026
