CTNF 18/002,325 CTNF 94184 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/04/2023, 02/14/2024, 08/01/2024, 04/09/2025, 10/06/2025 and 04/28/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Response to Election/Restriction requirement 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 16-25) in the reply filed on 12/19/2022 is acknowledged. Claims 26-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16, line 3, “the mold component” should be “the mold segment component” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 16, 18, 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 16 recites the term “their” in lines 9-11. The term “their” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Specifically, it is not reasonably certain whether “their” refers to “of the mold area elements” or another previously recited component. For examination purposes, the term “their” is construed as “of the mold area elements”. Claim 21 recites the same term “their” so that it is rejected by the same reason as claim 16. Claim 18 recites the terms “a metal power ” and “a metal building plate” which are unclear if these terms refer to the “metal power” and “planar building plate” previously recited in claim 16. In light of the specification, there is only one building plate 10 as shown in figs.7-9 of the current application. Therefore, the terms “a metal power” and “a metal building plate” (claim 18) is construed as the “metal power” and “planar building plate” (claim 16). Claim 20 recites the term “ the mold segments” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear whether the term “the mold segments” refers to the “mold segment component” (previously recited in claim 16, line 1) or “mold elements” (recited in claim 16, lines 4-5). For examination purposes, the term “the mold segments” is construed as the “mold elements” (recited in claim 16, lines 4-5). Claim 22 recites the term “peripheral frame parts (7b)” in line 2. It is unclear if the term “peripheral frame parts (7b)” corresponds to the term “bottom part (7b)” previously recited in claim 16 line 4 because both of the terms are illustrated by the same element 7b. For examination purposes, the term “peripheral frame parts (7b)” is construed as the term “bottom part (7b)”. In addition, claim 22 also recites the term “ a mold segment component” in last line which is unclear the relationship of this term with the “mold segment component” previously recited in claim 1. Claim 23 recites the term “mold area elements” in line 2. It is unclear the relationship between the term “mold area elements” (claim 23) and the same term “mold area elements” previously recited in claim 16. It is not sure if the term “mold area elements” (claim 23) corresponds to the one in claim 26. If so, the term “mold area elements” should be amended as “ the mold area elements”. Claims 24-25 are rejected by the virtue of the dependency on claim 23. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16, 17 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caretta US20010048182A1 in view of Kata (US 5340294 A) Regarding claim 16, Caretta discloses A method for producing a mold segment component of a vulcanizing mold (see title and abstract), the method comprising: building the mold component ( mould, see fig.1 and para.0037 ) using an additive process (See fig.1); melting a metal powder (3, see fig.1 ) on a planar building plate (6, see fig.1) together with a bottom part ( 12, see fig.1-3 ) and mold elements ( 13-14 and/or 16, see fig.3 ), the mold elements (13-14 and/or 16) delimit adjacent mold area elements ( 15, see fig.2-4) and form a region of a tread outer surface ( see para.0065: “said matrix 12 has longitudinal projections 13 directed parallelly to the circumferential extension of the tyre and alternately arranged with transverse projections 14 for delimiting corresponding cavities 15 intended to form corresponding blocks on the tyre tread band); additively building up the mold elements ( 13- 14 and/or 16, see fig.2) in each case as a unitary planar surface area (see surface of 13-14 and/or 16 in fig.2-3 ) wherein all of the mold area elements ( 15, see fig.2-4 ) and their surface areas (surfaces of 15, see figs.2-3) run parallel to one another with respect to the building plate ( 6, see figs.1-4 ) and the surface areas are at different levels and their mutual arrangement (arrangement of 15) approximates to a curvature region (106, See fig.5) for a tread outer surface ( 104, see fig.5 ) of a pneumatic vehicle tire (see fig.5 and para.0041, 0065). Caretta does not expressly disclose the surface areas are at different levels. Kata discloses a curing mold for pneumatic tires, comprising: The mold elements (see mold elements in annotated fig,2B below) comprise the surface areas ( upper surfaces ) are at different levels ( See fig.2 B). PNG media_image1.png 705 812 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated fig.2B of Kata Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the surface areas of the mold elements of Caretta to be at different levels as taught by Kata in order to obtain “an excellent appearance and improved accuracy and uniformity of product tires, and to readily respond to change in tire design and facilitate maintenance of the mold” (See col.2, lines 30-34 of Kata). Regarding claim 17, Caretta further discloses the additive process comprises selective laser melting layer-by-layer ( See fig.1 and para.0052, 0056, 0061). Regarding claim 19, Caretta further discloses the mold elements ( 13- 14 and/or 16, see fig.2) comprise one or more of lamellae, microlamellae, ribs and/or regions of ribs ( see figs.2-3) . Regarding claim 20, Caretta further discloses producing the mold segments ( 13- 14 and/or 16, see fig.2) with lamellae ( 16) and/or microlamellae extending parallel to one another (see fig.2) and with side surfaces (upper surfaces of 13- 14) bringing about the difference in level are additively built up (see figs.2-3) so that the side surfaces (upper surfaces of 13- 14) run parallel to the course of the lamellae and/or the microlamellae (16, see fig.2-3). Regarding claim 21, Caretta further discloses the mold area elements ( 13- 14 and/or 16, see fig.2-3) are additively built up from a plurality of planar surface areas (surface areas of the layers S of 14 and 16, see fig.4) running in a stepped manner in relation to one another (see figs.2-4) in such a way that the widths of their surface areas ( widths of 14 and 16 ) differ from one another (see fig.2-3), except. by at most + 30%. However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (fig. 2-3), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Caretta in view of Kata teaches certain widths of their surface areas (widths of 14 and 16) differ from one another (see figs.2-3 of caretta) and having specific widths is not inventive according to the courts. varying the widths of their surface areas differ from one another by at most + 30% is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so allows to obtain the desired dimensions of the tire’s grooves. Regarding claim 22, The method of claim 16, further comprising additively bulding up mold elements (16, see fig.3) with peripheral frame parts (12, see fig.3) to build an insert as a mold segment component ( mold, fig. 2 and para.0065 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caretta in view of Kata as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Teng (US 20200338818 A1) Regarding claim 18, Caretta further discloses the additive process comprises melting a metal power (3, see fig.1 and para.0049) on or over a metal building plate (6, see fig.1). Caretta does not expressly disclose a metal building plate. However, Teng discloses an additive manufacturing method and apparatus, comprising: a metal building plate (41, see figs.2a-2b) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the metal building plate of Teng for the one of Caretta since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable result of supporting/ holding the mold . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caretta in view of Kata as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Brady (US 20180117829 A1) Regarding claim 23, The method of claim 16, wherein structures in the form of elevations and/or depressions are superficially printed on mold area elements. Brady discloses Forming features in the surface of a bicycle component, comprising: structures in the form of elevations and/or depressions (730, see fig.10 and para.0060: “ a surface feature 730 including depressions or dimples”) are superficially printed on mold area elements (areas of 722, see fig.10. See para.0022: “jet material deposition processes, such as ink-jet printing processes, may be used to deposit the material onto the substrate to form the geometric patterned shape”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Caretta in view of Kata to add “structures in the form of elevations and/or depressions are superficially printed on mold area elements” as taught by Brady. Doing so “allows for a nearly unlimited flexibility to generate various patterns of shape features at a rapid pace and relative low cost” (see para.0022 of Brady”). Regarding claim 24, Caretta in view of Kata/Brady further discloses the superficial structures (730, see fig.10 of Brady. See rejection of claim 23, the structures are included in the modification) printed are visual elements, geometric patterns, and letters (see fig.10 and para.0060 of Brady). Regarding claim 25, Caretta in view of Kata/Brady further discloses the superficial structures (730, see fig.10 of Brady. See rejection of claim 23, the structures are included in the modification) printed are uniformly arranged structures in a network-like manner ( see fig.10 of Brady) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : US4769203A discloses A method of manufacturing pneumatic tires of different tread patterns by vulcanization building in full mold process. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/002,325 Page 2 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/002,325 Page 3 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/002,325 Page 4 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/002,325 Page 5 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/002,325 Page 6 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/002,325 Page 7 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/002,325 Page 8 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/002,325 Page 9 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/002,325 Page 10 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/002,325 Page 11 Art Unit: 3761
Prosecution Insights