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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Jan. 29, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11, 21 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-11, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis et al. (LU100945) in view of Ougier et al. (US 2018/0370074) and Ouchi et al. (US 2011/0267600).
Regarding claims 1, 21, Louis discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, a tire tread production line, comprising:
a coextruder (as shown in Fig. 1, item 10) for coextruding at least two rubber compositions (page 5, lines 27-30 (two supply units 32, 34)), the coextruder comprising at least two feeding inlets for receiving the at least two rubber compositions, an extrusion die (Fig. 1, item 30 (page 7, line 11)) for forming a multi-layer tire tread extrudate (Fig. 1, items 16, 18 (page 7, line 5));
It is noticed that, the coextruder combining with the single extrusion die 30 can be considered as providing a single body for fabricating the multi-layer tire tread extrudate 16 or 18. Thus, the single or individual die 30 provides at least one portion of the single body of the claimed coextruder.
a THz sensor (Fig. 1, item 22 (page 5, lines 3-8));
the THz sensor being configured to irradiate the multi-layer tire tread extrudate with THz electromagnetic radiation, and receiving a response of the multi-layer tire tread extrudate to the THz electromagnetic radiation (as shown in Fig. 1, items 26, 28 (page 7, lines 9-10));
a controller (Fig. 1, item 20 (page 7, line 6)) operatively connected to the coextruder and to the THz sensor (as shown in Fig. 1), the controller being configured to operate the coextruder based on the response of the multi-layer tire tread extrudate to the THz electromagnetic radiation.
Louis discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the controller system 20 is configured at least to measure the thickness (LT1, LT2) of the extruded rubber article by use of the THz sensor and at least one operating parameter (v1, v2, T, P) is adjusted as a function of the result of the measurement of the THz sensor (ABSTRACT). It is noticed that, the adjustments based on the measured results are a comparison with the target values (i.e., the operating parameters) stored in the controller.
It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the control device 24 controls the extrusion device 12 with corresponding output signals (page 5, lines 7-8). Here, at least the extrusion device 12 has its extrusion die 30 (page 7, line 11) to provide the target thickness of the extruded rubber article.
Thus, Louis discloses that, the controller being further configured to access a target tire tread extrude and to implement a feedback loop in the tire tread production line to mitigate deviations from the target tire tread extrude. It is noticed that, in the teachings of Louis, such layer-system based rubber articles are, e.g., intermediating in tire manufacturing (page 1, line 8). Thus, at least the thickness (LT1, LT2 as shown in Fig. 1) of the extrudate is related to the geometry of a tread pattern (related to claim 21).
However, Louis does not explicitly disclose that, the coextruder further comprising at least two screws for driving the received at least two rubber compositions and the at least two screws being configured to drive the at least two rubber compositions in the extrusion die. In the same field of endeavor, extruding elastomeric/rubber mixtures (for tires), Ougier discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 4-5, at least two screws for driving the received at least two rubber compositions and the at least two screws being configured to drive the at least two rubber compositions in the extrusion die ([0033] (coextruded profiled element P), [0043], [0044]).
As Louis does not explicitly teach an extrusion means, one of ordinary skill is prompted to look to related art. It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Louis to have the coextrusion system as Ougier teaches that it is known to have the coextruder including two screws to drive the rubber compositions including fillers through the die as both relate to similar coextrusion systems for a similar purpose presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so presents a simple use of a known extrusion technique in a similar device yielding predictable results. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar devices is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
However, Louis does not explicitly disclose that, the THz sensor is configured to translate in a direction transversal to a conveying direction of the multi-layer tire tread extrudate. Ouchi discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1 or 2C (also see attached annotated Figure I), when a sheet like object 40 is examined, the THz wave pulse is directed to the sheet perpendicularly to its moving direction (see labels of THz wave perpendicular to sheet-like sheet 40 and moving direction of sheet 40 in attached annotated Figure I).
It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 2C in the teachings of Ouchi, instead of moving the THz sensor, the sheet 40 is moving back and forth horizontally. However, the measuring results will be the same either the THz sensor is moving or the sheet is moving.
In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification
Ouchi discloses the claimed invention except for moving the THz sensor horizontally. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Ouchi, since it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to move the THz sensor in order to impart an alternative design option.
PNG
media_image1.png
405
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure I (based on Fig. 2C in the teachings of Ouchi)
Regarding claim 3, Louis discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the controller being configured to determine a thickness of at least one of the layers of the multi-layer tire tread extrudate based on the response of the multi-layer tire tread extrudate to the THz electromagnetic radiation, the controller being configured to operate the coextruder based on the determined thickness (page 5, lines 3-8 (for measuring the layer thickness LT1, LT2 (as shown in Fig. 1))).
Regarding claim 4, Louis discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the response of the multi-layer tire tread extrudate to the THz electromagnetic radiation comprises one or more echoes of the THz electromagnetic radiation, the one or more echoes being reflection and/or transmission of the THz electromagnetic radiation on one or more interfaces of the multi-layer tire tread extrudate (as shown in Fig. 1, the radiation emitting from the transmitting unit 26 then reflecting to the receiving unit 28).
Regarding claim 8, Louis discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the coextruder comprises a pressure sensor for sensing the pressure of at least one of the at least two rubber compositions in the coextruder, the controller being further configured to operate the coextruder based on the sensed pressure (page 5, lines 31-33 and page 6, lines 1-4 (i.e., there are various operating parameters for operating the extrusion device 12 (as shown in Fig. 1). These operating parameters include pressure. Thus, the pressure in the extrusion device 12 is measured by the pressure sensors)).
Regarding claim 9, Louis discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the controller is configured to operate the coextruder based on the response of the multi-layer tire tread extrudate to the THz electromagnetic radiation (as shown in Fig. 1). Ougier discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 4-5, two screws for driving the received at least two rubber compositions and the at least two screws being configured to drive the at least two rubber compositions in the extrusion die.
Regarding claims 10-11, Louis in the combination discloses the two supply units to provide the compositions in the coextrusion device. Louis discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the control device 24 for adjusting the at least one operating parameter as a function of the result of the terahertz time-domain spectroscopic measurement. The control device controls the extrusion device with corresponding output signals (page 5, lines 20-23). However, Louis does not explicitly disclose that a refractive index increaser feeder.
Ougier discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 5, the feed chute 41, 51, respectively, feeding a raw rubber compound A and B, the two compounds having different compositions ([0042], lines 5-7) and overall teaches explicitly four different compounding feeds. Ougier discloses that, in the compounds, other chemical elements such as sulfur (including fillers: carbon black (related to claim 11)) are included ([0044]). Ougier discloses a similar arrangement to Louis of providing a downstream sensor and feeding back information to the controller to adjust extrusion conditions including flow rate. Thus, the feeder in the teachings of Ougier is capable of feeding some material such as carbon black to change the refractive index of the overall tread product.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of the combination to have the two supply units to provide the compositions in the coextrusion device as Ougier discloses that teaches that it is known to have that a refractive index increaser feeder for providing carbon black , the controller being operatively connected to refractive index increaser feeder, the controller being configured to add refractive index increaser in at least one of the least two rubber compositions so as to increase a difference of refractive index of the at least two rubber compositions, based on the response of the multi-layer tire tread extrudate to the THz electromagnetic radiation. It has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known apparatus is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). While Ougier does not explicitly refer to any particular extruder as a “refractive index increaser feeder” the claim is directed towards a device. As the prior art device of Louis in view of Ougier is capable of performing the claimed function the device is interpreted to read upon the claim.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Louis et al. (LU100945), Ouchi et al. (US 2011/0267600), and Ougier et al. (US 2018/0370074) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ougier et al. (US 2022/0032525), hereafter Ougier’s 525.
Regarding claim 2, Louis in the combination does not explicitly disclose that, a conveyor belt for conveying the multi-layer tire tread extrudate from the coextruder to the THz sensor. In the same field of endeavor, coextrusion for tire, Ougier’s 525 discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 4, such a belt 80 is installed between two rollers which allows the coextruded profiled element strip to remain in position for much longer, and thus maximize the stress relaxation ([0057]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Ougier’s 525 to provide a conveyor belt for conveying the multi-layer tire tread extrudate from the coextruder to the THz sensor. Doing so would be possible to reduce stress concentration of the coextruded strip, as recognized by Ougier’s 525 ([0057]).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Louis et al. (LU100945), Ouchi et al. (US 2011/0267600), and Ougier et al. (US 2018/0370074) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Takahashi et al (US 2020/0164562).
Regarding claims 5-7, Louis in the combination discloses the THz sensor (Fig. 1, item 22 (page 5, lines 3-8)). Through the duplication, Louis is capable of disposing multiple THz sensors around the extrudate.
Louis discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the THz sensor, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the THz sensor for the purpose of measuring the thickness of the extrudate.
Further, in the similar filed of endeavor, rubber sheet monitoring (for tire ([0002])), Takahashi discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-3, the radiation sources 10, 12 for electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light) and the receiving devices 11, 13 are disposed in the opposite locations (i.e., collinearly) related to the rubber sheet 6 (related to claims 6-7) ([0035], [0036]).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of the combination to have the THz sensor as Takahashi teaches that it is known to have that the radiation source for electromagnetic radiation in the THz frequency range and a receiving device are disposed in the opposite locations (i.e., collinearly) related to the tread of the tire. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar devices is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that the base reference Louis and the reference Ougier does not disclose the coextruder comprising a single body, at least two feeding inlets for receiving the at least two rubber compositions, at least two screws for driving the received at least two rubber compositions arranged within the body, and an extrusion die for forming a multi-layer tire tread extrudate, it is not persuasive.
As illustrated in Fig. 1 of the teachings of Louis, the coextruder combining with the single extrusion die 30 can be considered as providing a single body for fabricating the multi-layer tire tread extrudate 16 or 18. Thus, the single or individual die 30 provides at least one portion of the single body of the claimed coextruder.
As illustrated in Fig. 1 or 5 of the teachings of Ougier, the feed pressure for compound coming from one of the extruders 40, 50 is higher than atmospheric pressure and chosen to be high enough to overcome the pressure drop through the extrusion die or profiling device 30 ([0057]). Thus, in the teachings of Ougier, the extrusion die or profiling device 30 plays a similar function just like the die 30 in the teachings of the base reference Louis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741