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 .
Withdrawal of Finality of Last Office Action
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
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)).
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 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, see p.7-8, filed 28 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11, 12 and 15-17 under 35 USC 103 regarding Christenbury’s lack of disclosure for a width for lower mold portion 56, and disclosure of said width being different than the width between lower members 14 and 16, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the finality of the rejection in the office action filed 29 October 2025 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Christenbury (US20120048439) (of record), Reeb et al. (US20180162016) (of record), Massis et al. (FR3063242A1 w/ US20190389164 as English equivalent) (of record) and Sawada (JP2006051863) (Machine translation) (of record).
With regards to applicant’s remarks on p.7 and 8 that Christenbury’s disclosure explicitly differentiates between “shape” and “dimension”, examiner notes that the arguments amount to applicant’s own opinion not supported by explicit evidence from the reference (for example, an explicit statement that the term “shape” excludes any and all relationship to the term “dimension”) and is not considered persuasive.
With regards to applicant’s remarks on p.9, applicant argues that neither Reeb nor Massis explicitly teach filling the intersection between a first hollow pattern and a second protruding pattern as they both just teach connection. Examiner disagrees, noting Reeb’s teaching of an “accommodate receiving slot” for improved connection between moulding elements ([0033], [0012]-[0015]) along with Fig 3 showing how the areas where the two protruding patterns intersect do not show any gaps between the two and by Massis’s teaching of having the protruding patterns “contained within the outline of [the protruding patterns], i.e. these means do not protrude from this outline” to avoid creating additional thicknesses on the strips ([0047]), an unfilled gap between the two protruding patterns would create additional thicknesses, which Massis explicitly teaches away from.
With regards to applicant’s remarks on p.9, applicant argues that Christenbury does not teach that a height of a bulge of a second protruding pattern is between 50% and 200% of a height of a fork of a first protruding pattern as claimed in claim 21. Examiner disagrees, noting that as set forth in the rejection of claim 21 above, Christenbury teaches in [0069] 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, making the height of the bulge being 100% of a height of the fork.
Conclusion
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