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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano (EP 2,020,311, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 14, 20, and 21, Nakano is directed to a tire construction comprising four area partition portions 10 that protrude from a tire outer surface (see Figure 3A with 2a corresponding with tire outer surface and H3 corresponding with a height of portions 10) and divide an entire circumferential area of tire side portions into four areas. Additionally, two identification portions (combination of marks 8 define a single area identification portion) are included in first and second areas. See modified Figure 14 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is emphasized that the combination of marks 8 in the first area can be viewed as a claimed “area identification portion” (in which case the area identification portions area arranged at equal intervals). Alternatively, it is noted that Nakano describes the inclusion of at least one mark 8, such as a figure or a symbol, suggesting that respective areas can include single marks 8 that correspond with the claimed area identification portions (Abstract and Paragraph 2). It is also evident that given the wide variety of marks disclosed by Nakano, respective areas can have the same or different marks (Figure 10 actually depicts the presence of different marks, which result in “uniquely identifiable” areas).
Regarding claim 3, a radial extent or length of said area partition portions can be on the order of 0.5 times a tire section height (Paragraph 13- area Y has a width of 0.5 times a tire section height SH and radial extension of partition portions 10 is ever so slightly less than Y).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Figure 14 depicts the presence of four areas and area identification portions 8 are only provided in two 2 of said areas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
5. Claim(s) 5, 6, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano and further in view of Ono (JP 08156501, of record).
As detailed above, Nakano teaches a tire construction comprising a plurality of area partition portions and a plurality of marks or identification portions. In such an instance, though, Nakano is silent with respect to the use of different hues or light emitting materials to form the aforementioned portions.
In any event, it is extremely well known and conventional to include such materials in tire constructions having decorative assemblies on the sidewall, as shown for example by Ono. More particularly, Ono states that (a) an ornamental effect is promoted in the evening when using light emitting materials and (b) thermo paints (results in different hues) provide a desired visual recognition. It is emphasized that any number of designs are conventionally used in sidewall assemblies, including those comprising a multitude of colors (corresponds with a desired aesthetic effect that fails to impart a mechanical function to the claimed tire construction).
6. Claim(s) 11, 12, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama (JP 2014-80099, newly cited).
Kodama is directed to a tire construction including a plurality of line-shaped protrusions 9 or area partition identification portions. Kodama further states that said protrusions are non-uniformly arranged over a circumferential extent of the tire, wherein such an arrangement is accomplished by varying the circumferential spacing between adjacent protrusions or by varying a radial extent of said protrusions. Figures 10 and 16 depict the presence of regions where a distance between adjacent protrusions gradually decreases in a first direction and regions where a radial extent of adjacent protrusions gradually decreases in a first direction. While Kodama fails to depict a tire construction in which such a gradual decrease exists over the entire circumferential extent of the tire, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the tire of Kodama in accordance to the claimed invention given the general disclosure of Kodama that a non-uniform arrangement allows for noise to be dispersed over a range of frequencies and ultimately vehicle interior noise can be reduced. It is emphasized that the general disclosure of a non-uniform arrangement by Kodama is seen to encompass the claimed arrangement.
Lastly, it is unclear how the language “uniquely identifiable” structurally distinguishes the claimed tire construction from that taught by Kodama (if areas have different circumferential extents or if areas are bordered by protrusions having different radial extents then said areas can be fairly characterized as being :uniquely identifiable”).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, see Figures 6 and 9 of Kodama.
7. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano and further in view of Kodama.
As detailed above, Nakano teaches the inclusion of marks 8 in areas defined by protrusions or area partition portions 10. In terms of the geometry of said area partition portions, it is extremely well known and conventional to use a wide variety of geometries for sidewall protrusions, as shown for example by Kodama (Figures 3-6). It is emphasized that a multitude of geometries are recognized as being suitable for sidewall protrusions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a convex geometry (as depicted in Figure 6 in Kodama) for the area partition portions of Nakano absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (Nakano recognizes an equivalency of a multitude of geometric shapes).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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 Smith 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 September 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights