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 § 112
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.
Claims 11, 12, 15-17 and 21 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 11 has been amended to include a limitation of “wherein the bulge of the second protruding pattern and the fork of the first protruding pattern overlap radially at most over 50% of a height of the fork of the first protruding pattern or a height of the bulge of the second protruding pattern”, mirroring language found in [0027] of the specification submitted on 15 October 2025. It is unclear how the limitation of “overlap radially at most over 50%” (underline for emphasis) should be interpreted, given that the term “at most” establishes the upper limit of a value and the term “over 50%” establishes the lower limit of the value. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to read as to “overlap
As claims 12 and 15-17 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 11, they stand as rejected for similar reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 15-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christenbury (US20120048439) (of record) in view of Reeb et al. (US20180162016) (of record), Massis et al. (FR3063242A1 w/ US20190389164 as English equivalent) (of record) and Sawada (JP2006051863) (Machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 11, Christenbury discloses a lining element of a curing mold for a tire forming a molding surface (“mold” (40)), the molding surface comprising recessed and protruding patterns,
a first protruding pattern (“progressive sipe mold member” (10)) delimiting a first recessed pattern (space formed by “lower mold members” (14, 16), Fig 11), and
a second protruding pattern (“second tread feature mold member” (52)) forming an intersection with the first protruding pattern (Fig 11);
wherein the first protruding pattern is formed of a first sipe blade (“upper member” (12)) with a cross section in the form of a fork (“lower mold members” (14, 16), Fig 11)),
wherein the second protruding pattern is formed by a second sipe blade (“upper mold portion” (54)) and by a bulge extending along a radially inner contour of the second sipe blade (“lower mold portion” (56)), and
wherein the bulge of the second protruding pattern and the fork of the first protruding pattern overlap radially along an entirety of a height of the fork of the first protruding pattern or a height of the bulge of the second protruding pattern (Fig 11, which is within the claimed range of over 50%).
While Christenbury discloses that the first and second protruding patterns intersect one another (Fig 11), Christenbury does not explicitly disclose how the two patterns are connected, specifically that the second protruding pattern comprises at least one second recessed pattern wherein the intersection partially delimits the at least one second recessed pattern, that the second recessed pattern protrudes with respect to the first recessed pattern, that the lining element has a molding element designed to fill the second recessed pattern and that a thickness of the bulge of the second protruding pattern is less than 60% of a thickness of a fork of the first protruding pattern. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that
a1) Reeb, which is within the tire manufacturing art, teaches that for a series of intersecting first protruding patterns (“moulding elements” (21)) and second protruding patterns (“moulding element” (1), Fig 1, 3, 4), the intersection between the two comprises a recessed pattern (“slot” (3)) that is protruding with respect to the first recessed pattern (Fig 1, 3, 4), with the slot shown to be shaped as an “accommodate receiving slot” based on the connecting piece ([0033], Fig 1, 3, 4) for the benefit of simple and practical assembly and improved connection between moulding elements ([0012]-[0015]);
a2) Massis, which is within the tire manufacture art, teaches that for the connection between two protruding patterns, the connection between the two should be “designed so that they are contained within the outline of [the protruding patterns], i.e. these means do not protrude from this outline” for the benefit of not interfering with the moulds themselves, interference including “creating additional thicknesses on the strips, thus reducing the profiles of the tread designs of the tread” ([0047]);
a3) the combined teachings of Reeb and Massis in Christenbury would result in modifying the intersection of the two protruding patterns so as to fill in any voids within the space formed by the two protruding patterns so as to not create additional thicknesses in areas where there should be none, including the space between “lower mold members” (14,16) located within “slot” (3); and
a4) filling the space would result in a molding element designed to fill the second recessed pattern;
b1) Christenbury teaches that the width of the “mold member” (10) can be from 3 to 8 mm ([0060]) and that “lower mold portion” (56) can have a similar or different shape to that of “mold member” (10), changes in shape which include changes in dimensions ([0068]);
b2) Sawada, which is within the tire manufacturing art, teaches that the width of a circumferential sipe’s (“circumferential sipe” (32)) bottom can be set to be 1 mm or less to ensure drainage while maintaining rigidity ([0026]);
b3) the combination of Christenbury’s “mold member” (10) (with a width from 3 to 8 mm), Christenbury’s circumferential sipe of “lower mold portion” (56), and Sawada’s teaching of a circumferential sipe’s width being 1 mm or less for ensuring drainage while maintaining rigidity would result in a combination of widths wherein a thickness of the bulge of the second protruding pattern is less than 60% of a thickness of the fork of the protruding pattern.
Furthermore, examiner notes that the current written specification, which only gives a general statement in [0027], does not support the criticality of the claimed thickness range or radial overlapping range with sufficient specificity as to render the claimed range non-obvious over the prior art (see MPEP 2131.03(II))
Regarding claim 12, modified Christenbury teaches all limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Additionally, Christenbury teaches that the first protruding pattern and the first recessed pattern have a longitudinal shape (Fig 11).
Regarding claim 15, modified Christenbury teaches all limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to have the molding element be integral with the first sipe blade, given that there is a limited number of ways that the space between the “lower mold members” (14,16) and “slot” (3) to be filled; either by adding a separate component that fits the space or modifying the shape of either the “lower mold members” (14, 16) or the “slot” (3) within the space, with the resulting shape of the components to fill the void being integral. The limited number of ways presents a finite number of options that are immediately recognizable to a person having ordinary skill in the art and do not produce new or unexpected results and would instead obtain the expected result of connection between the protruding patterns with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Christenbury teaches all limitations of claim 15 as set forth above. Additionally, Reeb teaches that the second sipe blade and the bulge have assembly means in the form of a slot into which the first sipe blade is intended to be inserted (“slot” (3)).
Regarding claim 17, modified Christenbury teaches all limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to have the molding element be integral with the second sipe blade and the bulge, given that there is a limited number of ways that the space between the “lower mold members” (14,16) and “slot” (3) to be filled; either by adding a separate component that fits the space or modifying the shape of either the “lower mold members” (14, 16) or the “slot” (3) within the space, with the resulting shape of the components to fill the void being integral. The limited number of ways presents a finite number of options that are immediately recognizable to a person having ordinary skill in the art and do not produce new or unexpected results and would instead obtain the expected result of connection between the molding components with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 21, modified Christenbury teaches all limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Additionally, Christenbury teaches that the height of the bulge (“lower mold potion” (56)) of the second protruding pattern can be the same as a height of the fork (“lower projection members” (14, 16)) of the first protruding pattern ([0069] as in 100% of a height of the first protruding pattern, which is within the claimed range of a height of the bulge of the second protruding pattern being between 50% and 200% of a height of the first protruding pattern).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s remarks on p.7-8, applicant argues that the teachings relied upon in Massis would not be properly combinable with Christenbury as Massis teaches that it is “impossible” to secure transverse flanges without a flange as the use of flanges affects the shape and operation of the tread indentation and would be considered teaching away from the combination. Examiner disagrees, noting the prior art is not teaching away from the use of flanges, given that “flanges have a decisive impact on the shape and operation of the indentations in the tread of the tyre” ([0004]) doesn’t explicitly say that the use of flanges renders the strip of WO2016200392 (disclosed earlier in [0004]) inoperable or negatively impacts their use, just that said flanges would have “a decisive impact”. Furthermore, the use of the word “impossible” is tied to the condition where “a flange is not desired”, which constitutes more of a nonpreferred embodiment as opposed to a drawback which would be considered discrediting, criticizing or discouraging the use of flanges in general (see MPEP 2123(II)).
Regarding p.8 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that as [0014] of Massis teaches “use strips without a protruding structure like a flange”, said passaged amounts to an explicit teaching away from the use of flanges. Examiner disagrees, noting that similar to above, the cited passage does not explicitly discredit, criticize or otherwise discourage the solution claimed (see MPEP 2123(II)).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, 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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights