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 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.
3) 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.
Japan 883
4) Claims 11-12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japan 883 (JP 2004-058883).
Japan 883 discloses a pneumatic tire (tire size 205/65R15) having a tread comprising circumferential grooves 16, 18, lateral grooves 36, 40, blocks 42, 44 and sub-blocks 48B. The sub-block 48B extends between lateral grooves 36, 40 and extends partially into circumferential groove 18. An annotated partial copy of FIGURE 2 of Japan 883 is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
737
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Japan 883. In the MARKED UP FIGURE, 18 is a circumferential main groove, 16 is a circumferential sub groove, 36 is a lateral groove, 40 is a lateral groove, 42 is a first intermediate block and 44 is a second intermediate block. As can be seen from FIGURE 2, sub-block 48B extends between lateral grooves 36, 40 and extends partially into circumferential groove 18. Japan 883 teaches that sub-block 48B terminates near the center of the groove width of the circumferential main groove 18 [paragraph 80]. FIGURE 2 shows the free end of sub-block 48A is at a distance of about 60% width of circumferential groove 18 from a left lateral wall of the circumferential groove 18. Groove width of circumferential groove 18 is 8 mm, width of sub-block 48B is 4 mm and width of lateral grooves 54, 56 is 1.8 mm [paragraphs 68, 77, 79, 83 machine translation]. In view of illustration of lateral grooves 36, 40 and 54, 56 [FIGURES 1-2] and Japan 883’s disclosure that width of lateral grooves 54, 56 is
1.8 mm, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that width of lateral grooves 36, 40 is 1.8 mm. Japan 883 teaches that the sub-blocks act like a brush or wiper to remove water and thereby improve performance on ice [paragraph 93 of machine translation]. In view of FIGURE 3 and Japan 683’s description of the sub-blocks, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the height of the sub-block 48B is 100% depth of circumferential main groove 18.
As to claim 11, the claimed tire is anticipated by Japan 883’s tire. The claimed longitudinal furrow reads on circumferential groove 18. The claimed raised elements read on blocks 42, 44. The claimed protuberances read on sub-blocks 48B. Since the sub-block 48B extends between lateral grooves 36, 40 and extends partially into circumferential groove 18, the sub-block 48B extends transversely from a “depression” in the first lateral wall of the longitudinal furrow towards the second wall of the longitudinal furrow. As to d1 > 0.4 W, Japan 883 shows d1 for sub-block 48B is about 60% W (d1 ≈ 0.6 W) [FIGURE 2] and teaches sub-block 48B terminates near the center of the groove width of the circumferential main groove 18 [paragraph 80]. As to
H’ > 0.7 H, Japan 883 teaches height of sub-block 48B = depth of circumferential main groove [H’ = 1.0 H]. As to L1 > 1 mm, Japan 883 teaches width of sub-block 48B =
4 mm [L1 = 4 mm].
As to Claim 12 (1.3W > LA > 0.7W), Japan 883 teaches LA = 7.6 mm [1.8 mm + 4 mm + 1.8 m = 7.6 mm] and W = 8 mm. Therefore, Japan 883 teaches LA = 0.95 W.
As to claim 15 (d1 < 0.6 W), Japan 883 shows d1 for sub-block 48B is about 60% W (d1 ≈ 0.6 W) [FIGURE 2] and teaches sub-block 48B terminates near the center of the groove width of the circumferential main groove 18 [paragraph 80].
As to claim 16, the walls of the lateral groove [FIGURE 3], which connect to the circumferential groove [FIGURE 1], are inclined an angle B within the claimed range of at most equal to 65 degrees with the radial direction.
As to claim 17 (H’ > 90% H, Japan 883 teaches height of sub-block 48B = depth of circumferential main groove [H’ = 1.0 H].
As to claim 20, the claimed two adjacent longitudinal furrows read on circumferential grooves 18 and 16. As to two protuberances, note that the left end of sub-block 48B (one protuberance) enters circumferential groove 18 and the right end of the sub-block 28B (another protuberance) enters circumferential groove 16. The claimed at least one transverse groove connecting two depressions reads on the void comprising lateral groove 36 and lateral groove 40.
5) Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 883 (JP 2004-058883).
As to claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 883’s tire such that each protuberance has a mean longitudinal thickness L1M at most equal to 50% of the longitudinal length LA of the depression since (1) Japan 883 teaches extending the sub-block 48B (protuberance) between two lateral grooves 36, 40, (2) Japan 883 teaches using a width equal to 3 mm to 8 mm for the sub-block 48B and a width equal to, for example 1.8 mm, for the lateral grooves 36, 40 and (3) the length of the “depression” width of lateral groove 36 + width of sub-block 48B + width of lateral groove 40. Therefore, Japan 883 renders obvious L1M = 45% LA [L1M = 3 mm; LA = 1.8 mm + 3 mm + 1.8 mm = 6.6 mm; L1M/LA = 3 mm / 6.6 mm = 0.45 → L1M = 45% LA].
As to claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 883’s pneumatic tire such that the transverse distance d1 is at most equal to 0.6 times the mean width W of the longitudinal furrow since (1) Japan 883 shows d1 for sub-block 48B is about 60% W (d1 ≈ 0.6 W) [FIGURE 2] and (2) Japan 883 teaches sub-block 48B terminates near the center of the groove width of the circumferential main groove 18 [paragraph 80].
6) Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 883 (JP 2004-058883) in view of Japan 764 (JP 2014-076764).
As to claims 19 and 22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 883’s tire such that two consecutive protuberances, not necessarily bearing against the same first or second lateral wall, are spaced apart by a spacing P, and wherein the protuberances of the longitudinal furrow are spaced apart in pairs by spacing at most equal to 0.1 times the circumferential length L of the tread [claim 19], the protuberances of the longitudinal furrow are spaced apart in pairs by a spacing at most equal to 0.05 times the circumferential length L of the tread [claim 22] since (1) Japan 883 discloses using the tread for a pneumatic tire having a passenger tire size of 205/65R15, which has a tire circumferential length = 2034 mm [205/65R15 → section width SW = 205 mm, aspect ratio = section height SH / section width SW = 0.65, rim diameter D = 15 inches = 381 mm → SH = aspect ratio x section width = (0.65) (205 mm) = 133.3 mm → radius = ½ D + SH = ½ (381 mm) + 133.3 mm = 323.8 mm → circumferential length = 2πR = 2π(323.8 mm) = 2034 mm], (2) Japan 883 shows arranging the sub-blocks 28B according to the pitch of lateral grooves 36 [FIGURE 1] and (3) Japan 764 teaches that in a general radial tire for passenger cars, pitch length P of lateral grooves is 20 mm to 45 mm [FIGURES 2-3, paragraph 55 machine translation]. It is noted that 45 mm / 2034 mm = 0.02. This value of 0.02 falls within the claimed range of at most equal to 0.1 [claim 19] and within the claimed range of at most equal to 0.05 [claim 22].
Buxton
7) Claims 11-12, 14-16, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buxton (US 2013/0153104) in view of Scheifele (US 2020/0114695) and further in view of Kogure et al (US 5,355,922) or Saguchi (US 2005/0076986).
Buxton discloses a tire having a tread comprising circumferential grooves, lateral grooves and blocks wherein peaks (protuberances) for improving snow performance are provided in the lateral grooves [FIGURE 1]. Buxton’s FIGURE 1 embodiment is similar to applicant’s FIGURE 4 embodiment. FIGURE 4 illustrates a peak (protuberance) in a lateral groove. The peak (protuberance) has a height of 25 to 75% depth of the lateral groove. The peak (protuberance) has a width = 5 to 75% (preferably 33 to 66%) width of the lateral groove. FIGURE 1 illustrates a peak (protuberance) extending from a center lateral groove and into the two adjacent circumferential grooves. Buxton teaches that peaks 22 may be blended into the bottom of circumferential grooves 14 at the intersection of circumferential 14 and lateral grooves 16 [paragraph 34]. Buxton also teaches peaks 22 may also traverse circumferential grooves 14 [paragraph 34]. Buxton does not literally recite “the longitudinal furrow comprises protuberances distributed in the longitudinal direction, wherein each protuberance extends transversely from a depression in the first lateral wall of the longitudinal furrow towards the second lateral wall of the longitudinal furrow”.
As to claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Buxton’s tire such that “the longitudinal furrow comprises protuberances distributed in the longitudinal direction, wherein each protuberance extends transversely from a depression in the first lateral wall of the longitudinal furrow towards the second lateral wall of the longitudinal furrow” since (1) (A) Buxton teaches providing peaks (protuberances) for improving snow performance in lateral grooves (depressions) [FIGURE 1], (B) FIGURE 1 of Buxton illustrates a peak (protuberance) extending from a center lateral groove and into the two adjacent circumferential grooves and (C) Buxton teaches (i) peaks 22 may be blended into the bottom of circumferential grooves 14 at the intersection of circumferential 14 and lateral grooves 16 [paragraph 34] and (ii) Buxton also teaches peaks 22 may also traverse circumferential grooves 14 [paragraph 34] and (2) Scheifele teaches providing a pneumatic tire having blocks separated by grooves such that the tread includes protuberances (protrusions 130, ridges 150) partially extending into a circumferential groove to improve snow performance [FIGURES 2-4]. When considered as a whole, Buxton and Scheifele render obvious partially extending Buxton’s peaks (protuberances) from the lateral grooves and into the circumferential grooves to obtain the expected and predictable benefit of improved snow performance.
As to d1 > 0.4 W [claim 11], Scheifele teaches partially extending protuberances into a circumferential groove and thereby renders obvious the limitation of d1 > 0.4 W.
As to H’ > 0.7 H [claim 11], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Buxton’s tire such that the free end of the peak (protuberance) has a height H’ at least equal to 0.7 times the depth of the circumferential groove (longitudinal furrow) since (1) Buxton discloses a block pattern tread pattern comprising blocks separated by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves and teaches height of peak (protuberance) = 25 to 75% (e.g. 75%) of the depth of the lateral groove and (2) (A) Kogure teaches that it is known in the tire tread part to provide a passenger tire (passenger tire size 185/70R13) having tread pattern comprising blocks separated by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves such that the circumferential grooves and lateral grooves have the same depth (8.5 mm) [EXAMPLE 1] or (B) Saguchi teaches that it is known in the tire tread part to provide a pneumatic tire (passenger tire size 195/65R14) having tread pattern comprising blocks separated by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves [FIGURE 8] such that the circumferential grooves and lateral grooves have the same depth (8 mm) [paragraphs 99-100]. Buxton and Kogure et al render obvious providing the peaks (protuberances) with a height being 75% of groove depth of circumferential groove. Buxton and Saguchi render obvious providing the peaks (protuberances) with a height being 75% of groove depth of circumferential groove.
As to L1 > 1 mm [claim 11], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Buxton’s tire such that each protuberance has, at the free end of the protuberance, a longitudinal thickness L1 at least equal to 1 mm since (1) Buxton teaches that the peak (protuberance) has a width = 5 to 75% (preferably 33 to 66%) width of the lateral groove and (2) (A) Kogure et al teaches that it is known in the tire tread part to provide a passenger tire (passenger tire size 185/70R13) having tread pattern comprising blocks separated by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves such that the lateral grooves have a width of 4 mm [EXAMPLE 1] or (B) Saguchi teaches that it is known in the tire tread part to provide a pneumatic tire (passenger tire size 195/65R14) having tread pattern comprising blocks separated by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves [FIGURE 8] such that the lateral grooves have a width of 8 mm [paragraphs 99-100]. Buxton and Kogure render obvious L1 = 1.3 mm [4 mm x 0.33 = 1.3 mm]. Saguchi and Kogure render obvious L1 = 2.64 mm [8 mm x 0.33 = 1.3 mm].
As to “each protuberance is positioned facing a portion of the second lateral wall, which is free of protuberance [claim 11], the free ends of the peaks (protuberances) in the center lateral grooves at a central circumferential groove are not circumferentially aligned with the free ends peaks (protuberances) in middle lateral grooves at the central circumferential groove [FIGURE 1 of Buxton].
As to claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Buxton’s tire such that the longitudinal length LA of the depression of each protuberance is at most equal to 0.7 times the mean width W of the longitudinal furrow and at most equal to 1.3 times the mean width W of the longitudinal furrow since (1) Buxton teaches that the peak (protuberance) has a width of 5 to 75% width of lateral groove and (2) Saguchi teaches that it is known in the tire art to provide a tire such that width and depth of circumferential grooves is 8 mm and width and depth of lateral grooves is 8 mm [FIGURE 8, paragraphs 99-100]. Thus, Buxton and Saguchi render obvious LA = 0.75 W [WP = 0.75 GWL, GWC = 8 mm, GWL = 8 mm → 8 mm x 0.75 = 6 mm → 6 mm / 8 mm = 0.75].
As to claims 14 and 21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Buxton’s tire such that each protuberance has a mean longitudinal width thickness L1M at most equal to 50% of the longitudinal length LA of the depression [claim 14], each protuberance has a mean longitudinal thickness L1M at most equal to 20% of the longitudinal length LA of the depression [claim 21] since Buxton teaches that the peak (protuberance) has a width of 5 to 75% width of lateral groove. Thus, Buxton renders obvious L1M = 20% LA (20% falling within Buxton’s range of 5 to 75%).
As to claim 15 (d1 < 0.6 W), Scheifele teaches partially extending protuberances into a circumferential groove and thereby renders obvious the limitation of d1 < 0.6 W.
As to claim 16, the walls of the lateral groove [FIGURE 4], which connect to the circumferential groove [FIGURE 1], are inclined an angle B within the claimed range of at most equal to 65 degrees with the radial direction.
As to claim 18 (alternately bear), the free ends of the peaks (protuberances) in the center lateral grooves at a central circumferential groove are not circumferentially aligned with the free ends peaks (protuberances) in middle lateral grooves at the central circumferential groove [FIGURE 1 of Buxton]; these free ends thereby being alternately arranged along the central circumferential groove. It is again noted that, when considered as a whole, Buxton and Scheifele render obvious partially extending Buxton’s peaks (protuberances) from the lateral grooves and into the circumferential grooves to obtain the expected and predictable benefit of improved snow performance.
As to claim 20, the claimed transverse groove connecting two depressions reads on a center lateral groove in Buxton’s tread [FIGURE 1] and the claimed two protuberances of two adjacent longitudinal furrows delimiting one of the raised elements reads on the peak (protuberance) in the center lateral groove. It is emphasized that Buxton’s FIGURE 1 embodiment is similar to applicant’s FIGURE 4 embodiment.
8) Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buxton (US 2013/0153104) in view of Scheifele (US 2020/0114695) and further in view of Kogure et al (US 5,355,922) or Saguchi (US 2005/0076986) as applied above and further view of Japan 764 (JP 2014-076764).
As to claims 19 and 22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Buxton’s tire such that two consecutive protuberances, not necessarily bearing against the same first or second lateral wall, are spaced apart by a spacing P, and wherein the protuberances of the longitudinal furrow are spaced apart in pairs by spacing at most equal to 0.1 times the circumferential length L of the tread [claim 19], the protuberances of the longitudinal furrow are spaced apart in pairs by a spacing at most equal to 0.05 times the circumferential length L of the tread [claim 22] since (1) Buxton teaches providing peaks (protuberances) in lateral grooves of a tread of a tire; the protuberances thereby having a pitch equal to the pitch of the lateral grooves, (2) Japan 764 discloses providing a tire having a tread comprising circumferential grooves, and lateral grooves with a passenger size of 195/65R15 [FIGURES 2-3, machine translation] which has a tire circumferential length = 1994 mm [195/65R15 → section width SW = 195 mm, aspect ratio = section height SH / section width SW = 0.65, rim diameter D = 15 inches = 381 mm → SH = aspect ratio x section width = (0.65) (195 mm) = 126.8 mm → radius = ½ D + SH = ½ (381 mm) + 128.8 mm = 317.3 mm → circumferential length = 2πR = 2π(317.3 mm) = 1994 mm], and (3) Japan 764 teaches that in a general radial tire for passenger cars, pitch length P of lateral grooves is 20 mm to 45 mm [FIGURES 2-3, paragraph 55 machine translation]. It is noted that 45 mm / 1994 mm = 0.02. This value of 0.02 falls within the claimed range of at most equal to 0.1 [claim 19] and within the claimed range of at most equal to 0.05 [claim 22].
Tsukagoshi
9) Claims 11-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukagoshi (US 6119744) in view of Muhlhoff et al (US 2015/0136289) or Japan 605 (JP 2000-233605).
Tsukagoshi discloses a heavy duty pneumatic tire (tire size 245/70R19.5) having a tread comprising raised elements separated by circumferential grooves wherein a circumferential groove comprises protrusions 3 wherein each protrusion extends from a wall of the circumferential groove and the protrusions are offset from each other in the circumferential direction [FIGURES 1A-1B]. The protrusions have a height at least equal to 70% depth of circumferential groove and less than 100% depth of circumferential groove. The protrusions are axially spaced apart by a distance t = 0.5 to 2.0 mm. The protrusions are circumferentially spaced apart by a distance s = 0.4 to 3.0 mm. The thickness of each protrusion is 1 to 4 mm. Columnar resonance is reduced as a noise problem and cracking in the groove fence is prevented. See col. 3 lines 34-42, 55-56, col. 4 lines 19-29, 43-45. Thus, each protrusion has a narrow width and a large height. In an example, groove width w = 11 mm and axial spacing t = 1 mm [col. 3 lines 61-67]. Therefore, the free end of a protrusion 3 is spaced at a distance = 54% groove width from the second wall of the circumferential groove. Using applicant’s claim nomenclature, Tsukagoshi discloses
d1 = 0.54 W,
H’ = 0.7 H
L1 = 1-4 mm.
Since the protrusions (protuberances) are circumferentially offset [FIGURE 1B], each protuberance is positioned facing a portion of the second lateral wall which is free of protuberance. Tsukagoshi discloses the claimed tire except for the depression.
As to claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Tsukagoshi’s pneumatic tire such that each protrusion 3 (protuberance) for reducing noise extends transversely from a depression in the first lateral wall of the circumferential groove (longitudinal furrow) towards the second lateral wall of the circumferential groove (longitudinal furrow) since (1) Muhlhoff et al, also directed to a pneumatic tire having a tread having reduced noise and comprising narrow width and large height protrusions in a circumferential groove, suggests providing depression in a lateral wall of the circumferential groove and extending the protrusion from the depression into the circumferential groove [FIGURES 2, 5]; one of ordinary skill in the art readily understanding that the edges of the depression creates addition edges for improved traction or (2) Japan 605, also directed to a pneumatic tire having a tread having reduced noise and comprising narrow width and large height protrusions in a circumferential groove, suggests providing depression in a lateral wall of the circumferential groove and extending the protrusion from the depression into the circumferential groove [FIGURES 1-4, machine translation]; one of ordinary skill in the art readily understanding that the edges of the depression creates addition edges for improved traction.
As to claims 12 and 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Buxton’s tire such that the longitudinal length LA of the depression of each protuberance is at most equal to 0.7 times the mean width W of the longitudinal furrow and at most equal to 1.3 times the mean width W of the longitudinal furrow [claim 12], the transverse width TA of the depression of each protuberance is at least equal to 0.2 times the mean width W of the longitudinal furrow [claim 13] in view of either Muhlhoff et al or Japan 605’s teaching to provide a depression a lateral wall of a circumferential groove and extend a narrow width and large height protrusion from the depression to the circumferential groove.
As to claim 16, Muhlhoff et al [FIGURS 2-4] or Japan 605 [FIGURES 4, 6, 7, 9] teach a depression being connected to a groove by inclined walls that form a mean angle B at most equal to 65 degrees with the radial direction.
As to claim 17, Tsukagoshi teaches that the protrusions have a height at least equal to 70% depth of circumferential groove and less than 100% depth of circumferential groove.
As to claim 18, Tsukagoshi teaches alternately arranging the protrusions on the walls of the circumferential groove [FIGURE 1B].
Remarks
10) The remaining references are of interest.
11) No claim is allowed.
12) 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
August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights