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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 line 4 ambiguously refers to “the block”. Which block? In claim 1 line 4, it is suggested to change “the block” to --the first block--.
4) 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.
Sato #2 + Hoke
5) Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato #2 (US D1,062,589) in view of Hoke (US 3,727,661).1
Sato #2 is available as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 102(a)(2). With respect to 35 USC 102(a)(1), applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Without this translation, the earliest filing date to which claims 1-14 are entitled is 6-16-25. The publication date (2-18-25) of Sato #2 is before the earliest filing date (6-16-25) to which claims 1-14 are entitled. With respect to 35 USC 102(a)(2), the effectively filed date (3-13-23) of Sato #2 is before the earliest filing date (6-16-25) to which claims 1-14 are entitled.
Sato #2 discloses a tire [title] having a tread pattern comprising first and second blocks and a groove dividing the blocks [FIGURES 1-7]. An annotated copy of a portion of FIGURE 2 of Sato #2 is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
622
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MARKED UP FIGURE #1
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE #1, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Sato #2. In MARKED UP FIGURE #1, “1” is a first block, “2” is a second block, “G” is a shoulder circumferentially extending groove dividing the first block and second block, “S” is a slit and “PP” is a protruding portion. As can be seen from MARKED UP FIGURE #1, the first block includes a slit that extends from the groove and terminates in the first block and a protruding portion that protrudes from a portion adjacent to the slit toward the outside of the block beyond a block end on an opposite side of the slit. The tread pattern shown in FIGURE 2 of Sato #2 is substantially similar to the tread pattern shown in FIGURE 2 of applicant’s disclosure. Sato #2 does not show the groove being formed with a groove bottom protrusion in which a groove bottom is raised from a portion adjacent to an opening portion of the slit as to connect to the protruding portion.
As to claims 1 and 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pneumatic tire having a tread such that the tread comprises Sato #2’s tread pattern and such that:
the shoulder circumferentially extending groove is formed with a groove bottom protrusion in which a groove bottom is raised from a portion adjacent to an opening portion of the slit so as to connect to the protruding portion [claim 1],
the groove bottom protrusion extends along the protruding portion from a portion adjacent to a the opening portion of the slit toward a distal end of the protruding portion [claim 5]
since (1) Sato #2 teaches using the tread pattern [FIGURES 1-7, MARKED UP FIGURE #1] for a tire [TITLE] and (2) Hoke teaches providing a pneumatic tire comprising a tread having a tread pattern comprising circumferential grooves, which may be zigzag, such that cross bars (groove bottom protrusions) are formed on the bottom of a circumferential groove to minimize or prevent damage from stone pick up and stone penetration wherein each cross bar extends from one wall of the groove to another wall of the groove, height H of the cross bar is 1/16 inch to 50% groove depth D (1.6 mm to 50% groove depth D), width W of the cross bar is 50-90% pitch P of the cross bars, width W of cross bar is at least equal to spacing S of the cross bars, spacing S of the cross bars us 10-50% pitch P of the cross bars and spacing S of the cross bars is less than width G of the groove. In light of Sato #2’s illustration of the tread pattern and Hoke’s disclosure regarding width, spacing and pitch of the cross bars, a pneumatic tire having Sato #2’s tread pattern and cross bars as per Hoke comprises: “groove bottom protrusion (cross bar) in which a groove bottom is raised from a portion adjacent to an opening portion of the slit so as to connect to the protruding portion” [claim 1] and “groove bottom protrusion extend[ing] along the protruding portion from a portion adjacent to a the opening portion of the slit toward a distal end of the protruding portion” [claim 5]. Claim 1 fails to exclude additional groove bottom protrusions.
As to claim 2, Hoke discloses height of cross bar (groove bottom protrusion) being 1/16 inch to 50% groove depth.
As to claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pneumatic tire having Sato #2’s tread pattern and Hoke’s cross bars such that at the portion adjacent to the opening portion of the slit, the groove bottom protrusion is formed with a width equal to or greater than 80% of the opening width of the slit since (1) Sato #2 illustrates an opening width of the slit S being about 70% of a groove width of the circumferential groove [FIGURE 2, MARKED UP FIGURE #1] and (2) Hoke teaches that the width W of the cross bar (groove bottom protrusion) is greater than the spacing S of the cross bars and the spacing of the cross bars is less than groove width G of the groove.
As to claims 4 and 6, Sato #2 the groove bottom protrusion having a narrowing shape [FIGURES 1A-1C, 2].
As to claim 7, block 1 having slits S in Sato #2’s tread pattern is a center block and the protruding portion PP protrudes outward in a tire axial direction [FIGURE 2] / MARKED UP FIGURE #1].
As to claims 8 and 10-13, Sato #2 illustrates:
a sidewall of the protruding portion includes a tilted surface having a larger tilt angle relative to a normal to a profile surface of a tread than other portions of a sidewall of the first block [claim 8],
the tilted surface is formed deeper toward a distal end of the protruding portion [claim 10],
a maximum height of the tilted surface is equal to or greater than 30% of a depth of the groove [claim 11],
the tilted surface is formed on both sides of the protruding portion in a width direction [claim 12],
the tilted surface is formed from a distal end of the protruding portion to interior of the slit [claim 13].
See FIGURES 1, 2 and 5 of Sato #2.
As to claim 14, block 1 having slits S in Sato #2’s tread pattern is a center block and the protruding portion PP protrudes outward in a tire axial direction [FIGURE 2 / MARKED UP FIGURE #1].
6) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato #2 (US D1,062,589) in view of Hoke (US 3,727,661) as applied above and further in view of Cortes (US 2002/0092591).
As to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pneumatic tire having Sato #2’s tread pattern and Hoke’s cross bars such that the tilt angle of the tilted surface is 20° to 40° since (1) Sato #2 illustrates a sidewall of the protruding portion includes a tilted surface having a larger tilt angle relative to a normal to a profile surface of a tread than other portions of a sidewall of the first block [FIGURES 1, 2, 5] and (2) Cortes teaches providing a vehicle tire having a tread comprising blocks separated by grooves such that a tilt angle of a tilted surface (wall surface of block) is greater than 0 degrees and less than 45 degrees with respect to radial direction (angle of groove wall forming wall surface of block is greater than 90 degrees and less than 135 degrees with respect to outer surface of tread) to prevent debris (e.g. mud, snow, small rocks) being trapped in the groove [FIGURES 1, 4].
Sato #2 + Japan 346 + Sato #1
7) Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato #2 (US D1,062,589) in view of Japan 346 (JP 2011-178346) and Sato #1 (US D884,588).
Sato #2 is available as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 102(a)(2). With respect to 35 USC 102(a)(1), applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Without this translation, the earliest filing date to which claims 1-14 are entitled is 6-16-25. The publication date (2-18-25) of Sato #2 is before the earliest filing date (6-16-25) to which claims 1-14 are entitled. With respect to 35 USC 102(a)(2), the effectively filed date (3-13-23) of Sato #2 is before the earliest filing date (6-16-25) to which claims 1-14 are entitled.
Sato #2 discloses a tire [title] having a tread pattern comprising first and second blocks and a groove dividing the blocks [FIUGURES 1-7]. An annotated copy of a portion of FIGURE 2 of Sato #2 is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
622
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MARKED UP FIGURE #1
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE #1, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Sato #2. In MARKED UP FIGURE #1, “1” is a first block, “2” is a second block, “G” is a shoulder circumferentially extending groove dividing the first block and second block, “S” is a slit and “PP” is a protruding portion. As can be seen from MARKED UP FIGURE #1, the first block includes a slit that extends from the groove and terminates in the first block and a protruding portion that protrudes from a portion adjacent to the slit toward the outside of the block beyond a block end on an opposite side of the slit. The tread pattern shown in FIGURE 2 of Sato #2 is substantially similar to the tread pattern shown in FIGURE 2 of applicant’s disclosure. Sato #2 does not show the groove being formed with a groove bottom protrusion in which a groove bottom is raised from a portion adjacent to an opening portion of the slit as to connect to the protruding portion.
As to claims 1 and 4-6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pneumatic tire having a tread such that the tread comprises Sato #2’s tread pattern and such that:
the shoulder circumferentially extending groove is formed with a groove bottom protrusion in which a groove bottom is raised from a portion adjacent to an opening portion of the slit as to connect to the protruding portion [claim 1],
the protruding portion has a narrowing shape with a width gradually decreasing toward a distal end [claim 4],
the groove bottom protrusion extends along the protruding portion from the portion adjacent to the opening portion of the slit toward a distal end of the protruding portion [claim 5],
an extended portion of the groove bottom protrusion along the protruding portion has a narrowing shape with a width gradually decreasing toward the distal end of the protruding portion [claim 6]
since (1) Sato #2 teaches using the tread pattern [FIGURES 1-7, MARKED UP FIGURE #1] for a tire [TITLE], (2) Japan 346 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (tire size 205/55R16) having a tread comprising circumferential grooves, lateral grooves and circumferential grooves such that a groove bottom protrusion 6 is located in the circumferential groove adjacent an opening of the lateral groove in a projection region S to increase rigidity of an acute angle portion of a block to suppress noise and uneven wear [FIGURES 1A-1C, 2, machine translation]; the height of the groove bottom protrusion 6 being about 25% of groove depth of circumferential groove [FIGURES 1A, 2], the groove bottom protrusion 6 having decreasing width to minimize resistance to drainage [FIGURES 1A-1C, 2, machine translation] and (3) Sato #1 teaches a tire [TITLE] having a tread pattern comprising blocks, circumferential grooves and lateral grooves wherein the tread pattern comprises blocks having a one end open lateral groove (slit) and a groove bottom protrusion having varying width adjacent to an opening of the one of end open lateral groove (slit) [FIGURES 1-20, ESPECIALLY FIGURE 8]. Thus, Japan 346 and Sato #1 provide ample motivation (suppress noise and uneven wear) to provide a groove bottom protrusion adjacent to an opening of the one end lateral groove S (slit) of a block in the tread pattern of Sato #2 [claim 1]. As to claim 4, Sato #2 illustrates the groove bottom protrusion having a narrowing shape [FIGURES 1A-1C, 2]. As to claims 5 and 6, when Sato #2’s tread pattern is provided with a groove bottom protrusion adjacent to an opening of the slit S (one end open lateral groove) as per Japan 346 and Sato #1, then “the groove bottom protrusion extends along the protruding portion from the portion adjacent to the opening portion of the slit toward a distal end of the protruding portion”.
As to claim 2, Japan 346 shows the groove bottom protrusion having a height of about 25% of groove depth of the circumferential groove.
As to claim 3, Japan 346 teaches the groove bottom protrusion having a width greater than 80% of the opening width of the lateral groove (slit) [FIGURES 1A-1C, 2].
As to claim 7, block 1 having slits S in Sato #2’s tread pattern is a center block and the protruding portion PP protrudes outward in a tire axial direction [FIGURE 2] / MARKED UP FIGURE #1].
As to claims 8 and 10-13, Sato #2 illustrates:
a sidewall of the protruding portion includes a tilted surface having a larger tilt angle relative to a normal to a profile surface of a tread than other portions of a sidewall of the first block [claim 8],
the tilted surface is formed deeper toward a distal end of the protruding portion [claim 10],
a maximum height of the tilted surface is equal to or greater than 30% of a depth of the groove [claim 11],
the tilted surface is formed on both sides of the protruding portion in a width direction [claim 12],
the tilted surface is formed from a distal end of the protruding portion to interior of the slit [claim 13].
See FIGURES 1, 2 and 5 of Sato #2.
As to claim 14, block 1 having slits S in Sato #2’s tread pattern is a center block and the protruding portion PP protrudes outward in a tire axial direction [FIGURE 2 / MARKED UP FIGURE #1].
8) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato #2 (US D1,062,589) in view of Japan 346 (JP 2011-178346) and Sato #1 (US D884,588) as applied above and further in view of Cortes (US 2002/0092591).
As to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pneumatic tire having Sato #2’s tread pattern and groove bottom protrusion as per Japan 346 and Sato #1 such that the tilt angle of the tilted surface is 20° to 40° since (1) Sato #2 illustrates a sidewall of the protruding portion includes a tilted surface having a larger tilt angle relative to a normal to a profile surface of a tread than other portions of a sidewall of the first block [FIGURES 1, 2, 5] and (2) Cortes teaches providing a vehicle tire having a tread comprising blocks separated by grooves such that a tilt angle of a tilted surface (wall surface of block) is greater than 0 degrees and less than 45 degrees with respect to radial direction (angle of groove wall forming wall surface of block is greater than 90 degrees and less than 135 degrees with respect to outer surface of tread) to prevent debris (e.g. mud, snow, small rocks) being trapped in the groove [FIGURES 1, 4].
Ono + Hoke
9) Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (US 2024/0149620) in view of Hoke (US 3,727,661).
Ono discloses a tire having a tread pattern comprising first and second blocks and a groove dividing the blocks. An annotated copy of a portion of FIGURES 5 and 1 of Ono is provided below:
PNG
media_image2.png
632
842
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MARKED UP FIGURE #2
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE #2, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Ono. In MARKED UP FIGURE #2, “16D” is a first block, “16E” is a second block, “12D” is a shoulder circumferentially extending groove dividing the first block 16D and second block 16E, “14G” is a slit (one end open lateral groove), “20” is a protruding portion and the upper surfaces of the first block 16D and second block 16E are shaded. It is noted that Ono uses reference characters 16D, 16E, 12D, 14G and 20 to describe the above noted features. As can be seen from MARKED UP FIGURE #2, the first block includes a slit that extends from the groove and terminates in the first block and a protruding portion that protrudes from a portion adjacent to the slit toward the outside of the block beyond a block end on an opposite side of the slit. Ono does not show the groove being formed with a groove bottom protrusion in which a groove bottom is raised from a portion adjacent to an opening portion of the slit as to connect to the protruding portion.
As to claims 1 and 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Ono’s pneumatic tire having a tread such that:
the shoulder circumferentially extending groove is formed with a groove bottom protrusion in which a groove bottom is raised from a portion adjacent to an opening portion of the slit as to connect to the protruding portion [claim 1],
the groove bottom protrusion extends along the protruding portion from a portion adjacent to the opening portion of the slit toward a distal end of the protruding portion [claim 5]
since Hoke teaches providing a pneumatic tire comprising a tread having a tread pattern comprising circumferential grooves, which may be zigzag, such that cross bars (groove bottom protrusions) are formed on the bottom of a circumferential groove to minimize or prevent damage from stone pick up and stone penetration wherein each cross bar extends from one wall of the groove to another wall of the groove, height H of the cross bar is 1/16 inch to 50% groove depth D (1.6 mm to 50% groove depth D), width W of the cross bar is 50-90% pitch P of the cross bars, width W of cross bar is at least equal to spacing S of the cross bars, spacing S of the cross bars us 10-50% pitch P of the cross bars and spacing S of the cross bars is less than width G of the groove. In light of Ono’s disclosure of a tread pattern and Hoke’s disclosure regarding width, spacing and pitch of the cross bars, a pneumatic tire having Ono’s tread pattern and cross bars as per Hoke comprises: “groove bottom protrusion (cross bar) in which a groove bottom is raised from a portion adjacent to an opening portion of the slit so as to connect to the protruding portion” [claim 1] and “groove bottom protrusion extend[ing] along the protruding portion from a portion adjacent to a the opening portion of the slit toward a distal end of the protruding portion” [claim 5]. Claim 1 fails to exclude additional groove bottom protrusions.
As to claim 2, Hoke discloses height of cross bar (groove bottom protrusion) being 1/16 inch to 50% groove depth.
As to claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pneumatic tire having Ono’s tread pattern and Hoke’s cross bars such that at the portion adjacent to the opening portion of the slit, the groove bottom protrusion is formed with a width equal to or greater than 80% of the opening width of the slit since (1) Ono illustrates an opening width of the slit 14G being about the same as a groove width of the circumferential groove 12E [FIGURE 5] and (2) Hoke teaches that the width W of the cross bar (groove bottom protrusion) is greater than the spacing S of the cross bars and the spacing of the cross bars is less than groove width G of the groove.
As to claim 7, block 16D having slits 14G in Ono’s tread pattern is a center block and the protruding portion 20 protrudes outward in a tire axial direction [FIGURES 1-2 and 5-6].
As to claims 8, 10 and 11, see FIGURES 1 and 6 of Ono.
As to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Ono’s pneumatic tire such that the tilted surface 20A of the protruding portion 20 is inclined at an angle of 20 to 40 degrees with respect to a normal to the tread surface since Ono teaches inclining the tilted surface 20A of the protruding portion 20 at an acute angle with respect to a normal to the tread surface [FIGURE 6].
As to claim 14, block 16D having slits 14G in Ono’s tread pattern is a center block and the protruding portion 20 protrudes outward in a tire axial direction [FIGURES 1-2 and 5-6].
Kuwano + Japan 704
10) Claims 1-4, 7-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwano (US 2015/0306918) in view of Japan 704 (JP 2003-170704).
Kuwano discloses a pneumatic tire provided with a tread pattern including first blocks (center blocks disposed closer to an equator than to a ground contact end of the tread) and second blocks (shoulder blocks) having mutually different shapes and a shoulder zigzag circumferential groove 1 dividing the blocks, wherein the first block includes a notch 3 (slit) that extends from the groove 1 and terminates in the first block and wherein the groove 1 is formed with a tie bar 4 (groove bottom protrusion) in which a groove bottom is raised from a portion adjacent to an opening portion of the notch 3 (slit). See FIGURES 1-3. Kuwano does not recite a protruding portion that protrudes from a portion adjacent to the slit toward the outside of the block beyond a block end on an opposite side of the slit wherein the tie bar (groove bottom protrusion) connects to the protruding portion.
As to claims 1, 4 and 8-12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kuwano’s pneumatic tire such that:
the first block includes a protruding portion that protrudes from a portion adjacent to the slit toward the outside of the block beyond a block end on an opposite side of the slit wherein the tie bar (groove bottom protrusion) is adjacent to an opening portion of the slit so as to connect to the protruding portion [claim 1],
the protruding portion has a narrowing shape with a width gradually decreasing toward a distal end [claim 4],
a sidewall of the protruding portion includes a tilted surface having a larger tilt angle relative to a normal to a profile surface of a tread than other portions of a sidewall of the first block [claim 8],
the tilt angle of the tilted surface is 20° to 40° [claim 9],
the tilted surface is formed deeper toward a distal end of the protruding portion [claim 10],
a maximum height of the tilted surface is equal to or greater than 30% of a depth of the groove [claim 11],
the tilted surface is formed on both sides of the protruding portion in a width direction [claim 12]
since Japan 704 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 195/65R15) having a tread comprising blocks delimited by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves such that each of laterally extending walls 56, 58 have angles θ1 and θ2 respectively varying with respect to the radial direction along the width of the block and each of circumferentially extending walls 52, 54 have angles θ3 and θ4 respectively varying with respect to the radial direction along the length of the block [FIGURES 1, 5] to vary compression rigidity of block such that load input applied to block from road surface is dispersed so that noise is dispersed [machine translation]; the block thereby having protruding portions as shown below in an annotated copy of Japan 704’s FIGURE 5:
PNG
media_image3.png
496
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
MARKED UP FIGURE #3
wherein difference between large angle θ1 and small angle θ1 is 10 to 30 degrees, difference between large angle θ2 and small angle θ2 is 10 to 30 degrees, difference between large angle θ3 and small angle θ3 is 10 to 30 degrees, and difference between large angle θ4 and small angle θ4 is 10 to 30 degrees [machine translation]. In the above MARKED UP FIGURE #3, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Japan 704. In MARKED UP FIGURE #3, “PP” is a protruding protrusion, “T1” is a tilted surface inclined at angle θ1 with respect to the radial direction, “T2” is a tilted surface inclined at angle θ2 with respect to the radial direction, “T3” is a tilted surface inclined at angle θ3 with respect to the radial direction and “T4” is a tilted surface inclined at angle θ4 with respect to the radial direction. Angles θ1, θ2, θ3 and θ4 are illustrated in FIGURE 3, which is a cross sectional view of related embodiment FIGURE 2. As to be seen from MARKED UP FIGURE #3, each protruding portion PP comprises a pair of tilted surfaces (T2 and T4 or T3 and T1). When Kuwano’s first block is provided with tilted surfaces to reduce noise as per Japan 704 [FIGURE 5], then Kuwano’s first block comprises a protruding portion PP connected to tie bar 4 [claim 1]. As to claim 4, the protruding portion PP suggested by Japan 704 has a narrowing shape with a width gradually decreasing toward a distal end. As to claim 8, angles θ1, θ2, θ3 and θ4 are larger than angles of other portions of the wall surfaces of the block [FIGURE 5]. As to claim 9, Japan 704 teaches an angle range of 10-30 degrees. As to claim 10, the peak of the protruding portion PP at the groove bottom is deeper than the peak of the protruding portion PP at the block surface. As to claim 11, the maximum height of the protruding portion PP is 100% of depth of the circumferential groove. As to claim 12, each protruding portion PP comprises a pair of tilted surfaces (T2 and T4 or T3 and T1).
As to claim 2, Kuwano teaches height of the tie bar 4 (groove bottom protrusion) being 15% of depth of circumferential groove.
As to claim 3, the width of Kuwano’s tie bar 4 is 100% of width of opening width of notch 3 (slit). It is noted that Kuwano teaches arranging a dimple 5 in the tie bar wherein depth of dimple is equal to or deeper than 50% height of tie bar. The pending claims read on a groove bottom protrusion comprising a dimple and fail to exclude a dimple.
As to claims 7 and 14, the first block adjacent to the shoulder second block is a center block.
11) Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwano (US 2015/0306918) in view of Japan 704 (JP 2003-170704) as applied above and further in view of Great Britain 347 (GB 1,549,347).
As to claims 10 and 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kuwano’s pneumatic tire as modified by Japan 704 such that the blocks are chamfered so that:
the tilted surface is formed deeper toward a distal end of the protruding portion [claim 10],
the tilted surface is formed from a distal end of the protruding portion to interior of the slit [claim 13]
since Great Britain 347 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having tread elements and grooves such that all edges are chamfered to reduce commencement of localized tread wear and provide more uniform wearing of tread wherein chamfer depth D is 20-40% of tread element height Z [FIGURES 6 and 8]. When Kuwano’s pneumatic tire is provided with tilted surfaces as per Japan 704 and chamfers as per Great Britain 347, then the first block comprises a “tilted surface” comprising tilted wall surface portion (e.g. T4) [Japan 704] and chamfer tilted surface portion [Great Britain 347] wherein, as to claim 10, depth of tilted wall surface portion (e.g. T4) is deeper than depth of chamfer tilted surface portion and wherein, as to claim 13, the combination of the tilted wall surface portion (e.g. T4) and chamfer tilted surface extends from a distal end of the protruding portion to interior of the notch [slit]. Claim 10 and 13 read on and fail to exclude a “tilted surface” comprising tilted surface portions inclined at different angles with respect to the radial direction.
Sato #1 + Japan 704
12) Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato #1 (US D884,588) in view of Japan 704 (JP 2003-170704) and optionally Japan 346 (JP 2011-178346).
Sato #1 discloses a tire [TITLE] provided with a tread pattern including first blocks (center blocks disposed closer to an equator than to a ground contact end of the tread) and second blocks (shoulder blocks) having mutually different shapes and a shoulder zigzag circumferential groove dividing the blocks, wherein the first block includes a one end open lateral groove (slit) that extends from the groove and terminates in the first block and wherein the groove is formed with a groove bottom protrusion in which a groove bottom protrusion is raised from a portion adjacent to an opening portion of the one end open lateral groove (slit). See FIGURES 1-20, especially FIGURES 8 and 9. An annotated portion of FIGURE 8 of Sato #1 is provided below:
PNG
media_image4.png
566
792
media_image4.png
Greyscale
MARKED UP FIGURE #4
In MARKED UP FIGURE #4, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Sato #1. In MARKED FIGURE #4, “1” is a first block, “2” is a second block, “G” is a groove, “S” is a one end open lateral groove (slit), and “GBP” is a groove bottom protrusion. Sato #1 does not recite a protruding portion that protrudes from a portion adjacent to the slit toward the outside of the block beyond a block end on an opposite side of the slit wherein the tie bar (groove bottom protrusion) connects to the protruding portion.
As to claims 1, 4-6 and 8-12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pneumatic tire having a tread such that the tread comprises Sato #1’s tread pattern and such that:
the first block includes a protruding portion that protrudes from a portion adjacent to the slit toward the outside of the block beyond a block end on an opposite side of the slit wherein the groove bottom protrusion is adjacent to an opening portion of the slit so as to connect to the protruding portion [claim 1],
the protruding portion has a narrowing shape with a width gradually decreasing toward a distal end [claim 4],
the groove bottom protrusion extends along the protruding portion from the portion adjacent to the opening portion of the slit toward a distal end of the protruding portion [claim 5],
an extended portion of the groove bottom protrusion along the protruding portion has a narrowing shape with a width gradually decreasing toward the distal end of the protruding portion [claim 6],
a sidewall of the protruding portion includes a tilted surface having a larger tilt angle relative to a normal to a profile surface of a tread than other portions of a sidewall of the first block [claim 8],
the tilt angle of the tilted surface is 20° to 40° [claim 9],
the tilted surface is formed deeper toward a distal end of the protruding portion [claim 10],
a maximum height of the tilted surface is equal to or greater than 30% of a depth of the groove [claim 11],
the tilted surface is formed on both sides of the protruding portion in a width direction [claim 12]
since (1) Japan 704 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 195/65R15) having a tread comprising blocks delimited by circumferential grooves and lateral grooves such that each of laterally extending walls 56, 58 have angles θ1 and θ2 respectively varying with respect to the radial direction along the width of the block and each of circumferentially extending walls 52, 54 have angles θ3 and θ4 respectively varying with respect to the radial direction along the length of the block [FIGURES 1, 5] to vary compression rigidity of block such that load input applied to block from road surface is dispersed so that noise is dispersed [machine translation]; the block thereby having protruding portions as shown below in an annotated copy of Japan 704’s FIGURE 5:
PNG
media_image3.png
496
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
MARKED UP FIGURE #3
wherein difference between large angle θ1 and small angle θ1 is 10 to 30 degrees, difference between large angle θ2 and small angle θ2 is 10 to 30 degrees, difference between large angle θ3 and small angle θ3 is 10 to 30 degrees, and difference between large angle θ4 and small angle θ4 is 10 to 30 degrees [machine translation] and optionally (2) Japan 346 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (tire size 205/55R16) having a tread comprising circumferential grooves, lateral grooves and circumferential grooves such that a groove bottom protrusion 6 is located in the circumferential groove adjacent an opening of the lateral groove in a projection region S to increase rigidity of an acute angle portion of a block to suppress noise and uneven wear [FIGURES 1A-1C, 2, machine translation]; the height of the groove bottom protrusion 6 being about 25% of groove depth of circumferential groove [FIGURES 1A, 2], the groove bottom protrusion 6 having decreasing width to minimize resistance to drainage [FIGURES 1A-1C, 2, machine translation]. In the above MARKED UP FIGURE #3, the markings were added by the examiner to facilitate discussion of Japan 704. In MARKED UP FIGURE #3, “PP” is a protruding protrusion, “T1” is a tilted surface inclined at angle θ1 with respect to the radial direction, “T2” is a tilted surface inclined at angle θ2 with respect to the radial direction, “T3” is a tilted surface inclined at angle θ3 with respect to the radial direction and “T4” is a tilted surface inclined at angle θ4 with respect to the radial direction. Angles θ1, θ2, θ3 and θ4 are illustrated in FIGURE 3, which is a cross sectional view of related embodiment FIGURE 2. As to be seen from MARKED UP FIGURE #3, each protruding portion PP comprises a pair of tilted surfaces (T2 and T4 or T3 and T1). When a pneumatic tire having Sato #1’s tread pattern is provided such that the first block is provided with tilted surfaces to reduce noise as per Japan 704 [FIGURE 5], then Sato #1’s first block comprises a protruding portion PP connected to groove bottom protrusion GBP [claim 1]. As to claim 4, the protruding portion PP suggested by Japan 704 has a narrowing shape with a width gradually decreasing toward a distal end. As to claims 5 and 6, when Sato #1’s tread pattern is provided with protruding portion as per Japan 704, then “the groove bottom protrusion extends along the protruding portion from the portion adjacent to the opening portion of the slit toward a distal end of the protruding portion”; it being noted that Sato #1’s groove bottom protrusion GBP has a length covering a middle region of a circumferentially extending side of the first block and optional Japan 346 teaches a relatively long groove bottom portion raised from a groove bottom of a groove [FIGURES 1A-1C]. As to claim 8, angles θ1, θ2, θ3 and θ4 are larger than angles of other portions of the wall surfaces of the block [FIGURE 5]. As to claim 9, Japan 704 teaches an angle range of 10-30 degrees. As to claim 10, the peak of the protruding portion PP at the groove bottom is deeper than the peak of the protruding portion PP at the block surface. As to claim 11, the maximum height of the protruding portion PP is 100% of depth of the circumferential groove. As to claim 12, each protruding portion PP comprises a pair of tilted surfaces (T2 and T4 or T3 and T1).
As to claim 2, Sato #1 illustrates the groove bottom protrusion GBP having a height within the range of 5% to 50% groove depth [FIGURE 8 of Sato #1] and optional Japan 346 illustrates height of a groove bottom protrusion 6 being within the range of 5% to 50% groove depth [FIGURES 1A, 2 of Japan 346].
As to claim 3, Sato #1 illustrates the groove bottom protrusion GBP having a width greater than 80% of an opening width of the slit [FIGURE 8 of Sato #1] and Japan 346 illustrates the groove bottom protrusion GBP having a width greater than 80% of an opening width of the slit [FIGURES 1, 2 of Japan 346].
As to claims 7 and 14, the first block adjacent to the shoulder second block is a center block.
Remarks
13) The remaining references are of interest.
14) No claim is allowed.
15) 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
January 8, 2026
1 Sato #2 is intervening prior art since the publication date of Sato #2 is between applicant’s filing date and applicant’s 119 filing date. Sato #1 (US D884,588) was published before applicant’s filing date and before applicant’s 119 filing date and is therefore available under 102(a)(1) as non-intervening prior art. Sato #1 is used below in paragraphs 7 and 12 of this Office Action.