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 § 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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 5, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hokazono (US 11,701,927, of record) and further in view of Obara (JP 2004-291936, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 1, 6, and 7, Hokazono is directed to a tire construction comprising a tread portion 2, a pair of sidewall portions 3, and a belt structure 7, wherein said sidewall portions include at least one side block 12 protruding outward from a sidewall reference surface in the tire axial direction. It is further evident from the figures that (a) said at least one block is positioned in a region that is directly axially outward of belt structure 7 and well within the claimed 30 mm range from an intersection of said belt structure and a tire outer surface (emphasis on Figure 1) and (b) said side block includes a pair of first portions having a first protrusion height from a sidewall reference surface and a second portion sandwiched therebetween and having a second protrusion height that is smaller than said first protrusion height. See the modified figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
489
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is further evident from the figures that (a) a top surface of the first portions and second portions include flat regions that are parallel with a sidewall reference surface and (b) a combined circumferential length of the flat top surfaces of the first portions and the second portions is less than an overall circumferential length of the block as a whole on a sidewall reference surface. See the modified figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
502
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In such an instance, based on the taper at respective circumferential ends of the first and second portions, a combined circumferential length on the flat top portions (La+Lb+Lc) is less than an overall circumferential length LA of block 12 at the sidewall reference surface.
In terms of an exact ratio (La+Lb+Lc)/LA, the figures of Hokazono generally depict a ratio that is considerably greater than 0 and less than 1 and such is consistent with the extremely broad range between 0.2 and 0.75 of the claimed invention. Obara is further provided to evidence the desire to have a smaller surface area at a top portion of side blocks, as compared to at a base adjacent a sidewall reference surface. Figures 1 and 2b of Obara depict the presence of taper portions 8 at respective circumferential ends of a side block, such that a top flat portion has a circumferential length L1 that is smaller than a circumferential length L3 at a sidewall reference surface. It is particularly noted that Figure 2b of Obara depicts L1 and L3 values that would result in a ratio between 0.20 and 0.75. Obara also states that the inclusion of tapered regions 8 (which result in L1 less than L3) contributes to a reduced area of the side block at a top surface portion, as compared to the base surface portion at the sidewall reference surface, and reduces stress and ultimately improves tire durability (Paragraph 9). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Hokazono with a circumferential length ratio as required by the claimed invention given the disclosure and depiction of Hokazono and the art recognition that smaller circumferential lengths at a top surface, as compared to a base portion, contribute to reduced stress and improved durability (with the figures of Obara specifically depicting lengths that fall within the broad range of the claimed invention).
With further respect to claim 1, the ratio between circumferential lengths in the modified tire of Hokazono would be present at every radial location within side block 12 (and thus at the claimed location) given that groove 21 extends over the entire radial extent of side block 12.
Lastly, regarding claim 1 (and claim 5), Hokazono depicts a side block construction in which a thickness increases when moving radially outward from a radially inner end to a radially outer end (Figures 4 and 5). It is further noted that a fair reading of Hokazono suggests that such an increased thickness can be used in combination with the presence of grooves 21 creating first and second portions.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Figure 8 depicts the inclusion of ribs 23 that are connected to a circumferential outer end of the side blocks. Additionally, ribs 23 can have heights (claimed third protrusion height) that are the same as or different from height h2 (Column 9, Lines 10+), with h2 being between 1mm and 5 mm (Column 6, Lines 37+).
With respect to claim 10, distance d2 corresponds with a difference between first and second protrusion heights and Hokazono states that d2 varies between 0.5 mm and 2.0 mm (Column 8, Lines 55+).
4. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hokazono and Obara as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of JP 6946641 (of record).
As detailed above, Hokazono is directed to a side block-containing tire construction, wherein said side block includes a pair of first portions separated by a second portion having a smaller protrusion height. More particularly, said second portion results due to the presence of radially extending groove or recess 21. Figure 6 appears to depict groove 21 as extending over the entire radial extent of the side block, such that said first portions are not connected to one another. It is equally well known, though, to form tire side blocks with radially extending grooves or recesses that do not extend over the entire radial extent of the side block, as shown for example by JP ‘641 (Figure 7). It is emphasized that both groove arrangements are consistent with that which is well known and conventional in the tire industry and both would contribute to the desired goal of Hokazono, for example, of improving traction performance (Column 8, Lines 30+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form grooves 21 of Hokazono with a radial extension that is less than a radial extension of the side block given the common use of such arrangements in similar side block-containing tire constructions. Lastly, when using such an arrangement in the tire of Hokazono, respective first portions would in fact be connected at a radially inner end of the side block.
5. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hokazono, Obara, and JP ‘641 as applied in claim 2 above and further in view of JP 7036656 (of record).
In terms of the inclination angles of the outer surface of the side blocks, the figures of Hokazono appears to depict a constant angle over a radial extent of the side block. It is known, though, to from outer surfaces of side blocks with a varying angle to improve durability or trauma resistance, as shown for example by JP ‘656. More particularly, JP ‘656 states that an inclination angle θ near a radially inner end of a side block or protrusion is sufficiently smaller than an inclination angle θ near a radially inner end of said side block to obtain the aforementioned benefits. It is further noted that the claimed angle is actually in reference to a radially extending plane such that an angle in JP ‘656 that corresponds with the claimed angle would be greater at a radially inner end, as compared to a radially outer end. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form an outer wall of the side block in Hokazono in accordance to the claimed invention to obtain the aforementioned benefits and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
6. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hokazono and Obara as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of JP ‘656.
As detailed above, Hokazono depicts the presence of tapered portions along surfaces of the first portions and second portions. In such an instance, though, Hokazono is silent with respect to the exact angle defined by said tapered portions. In any event, the claimed angles of at least 15 degrees are consistent with that which is commonly used in similar side block-containing tire constructions, as shown for example by JP ‘656 (Figures 3 and 4). JP ‘656 states that a tilt angle θ is between 10 degrees and 90 degrees, which fully encompasses the claimed range. It is further noted that a wide variety of such angles would be consistent with the desire to have smaller circumferential lengths at a top surface portion, as compared to a base portion (depicted by both Hokazono and Obara). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use inclination angles in accordance to the claimed invention (such angles would create a difference in circumferential lengths and contributed to reduced stress and improved durability).
7. Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hokazono and Obara as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Fukasawa (US 20074/0194497, of record).
While Hokazono fails to depict the presence of spews, it is extremely well known and conventional to include a multitude of spews in modern day tire constructions (result from the presence of vent holes in molds). Fukasawa provides one example of a spew-containing tire construction, wherein 60 vent holes are provided, each having an exemplary diameter of 0.6 mm (Paragraph 35). It is emphasized that the inclusion of a multitude of vent holes (and thus vent spews) is consistent with the well-known and conventional manner in which modern day tire constructions are manufactured (provides path for air to escape). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include vent holes along any circumferential region of the tire of Hokazono, including the radial location of side blocks 12, for the benefits detailed above.
With specific respect to claim 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of lengths for the top surface of the first portions given that a critical feature is to form a reduced area of the side block at the top surface as compared to the base portion. It is particularly noted that Hokazono is not limited to any single circumferential length, it being emphasized that tire dimensions are highly dependent on the tire size and ultimately the intended use of the tire. Given a spew diameter of 0.6 mm (exemplary spew diameter), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a circumferential length of 0.9 mm, for example, such that the claimed ratio is satisfied. Again, smaller circumferential lengths in the top portion would be associated with a greater number of side blocks and/or smaller tire constructions. Lastly, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected result for the claimed relationship (lack of comparative examples in which the claimed ratio is not satisfied).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the artisan of ordinary skill should not have understood “a pair of first portions protruding from the sidewall reference surface over a first protrusion height and extending in the tire radial direction and a second portion protruding from the sidewall reference over a second protrusion height less than the first protrusion height, the second portion being between the pair of first portions” to be analogous to only the second protruding portion 12 in Figures 6 and 7 of Hokazono.
This argument is not entirely understood. The second protruding portion 12 of Hokazono includes a pair of first portions and a second portion therebetween satisfying the claimed structural limitations. This is particularly evidenced by the modified figures on Pages 3 and 4 above. Applicant has not pointed to a specific structural limitation required by the claims but not disclosed by Hokazono.
Applicant further states that the rejection fails to properly distinguish between different block components, as should have been understood by the artisan of ordinary skill. This argument in not understood. The modified figures above specifically indicate what portion of component 12 is being viewed as the claimed second portion and what portions of component 12 are being viewed as the plurality of first portions. It is emphasized that respective first portions having a height that is greater than a height of the second portion (second portion height extends from a sidewall reference surface to a bottom of groove 21.
Applicant further contends that at most, Hokazono may describe that the radial height taper applies to only the second protruding portions 12. The Examiner agrees that the disclosed taper is associated with portions 12 and as stated above, portions 12 include a pair of first portions and a second portion sandwiched therebetween. The fact that first protruding portions 11 of Hokazono are devoid of a radial height taper is immaterial to the pending rejection as the second portions 12 of Hokazono individually correspond with the claimed side block. The claims as currently drafted fail to exclude the presence of additional components 12 on a tire sidewall.
Lastly, Applicant argues that the embodiments of Figures 4 and 6 of Hokazono cannot be combined because Figure 14 provides a second portion 12 having high rigidity whereas Figure 6 provides a second protruding portion that is easier to be moderately deformed in the tire circumferential direction. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding Figure 4, Hokazono states that second protruding portions 12 protrude outward in the tire axial direction directly from the base surface 10 and side surfaces are connected to the base surface (Column 7, Lines 20+). Hokazono further states that the second protruding portions “configured as such” have high rigidity and are useful for improving traction on rocky roads and soft roads. The language “as such” refers to the axial extension and the inclusion of side surfaces connected to a base surface. This arrangement is present when the second protruding protrusions have the structure in either Figure 4 or Figure 6 and thus sufficient rigidity is present in either structure. Hokazono states that the inclusion of a groove further improves the traction on a soft road (Column 8, Lines 18-27). As detailed in In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980), it is prima facie obviousness to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. In such an instance, Hokazono teaches a benefit in traction performance as a result of including a radial taper or including a groove that defines a pair of first portions and a second portion therebetween. Thus, a single assembly including such a combination of features would have been well within the scope of one having ordinary skill in the art.
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 August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights