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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 May 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
As noted in the previous office action, the drawings are objected to because Fig 11 is a two axis graph comparing Friction Force to Sliding Distance yet neither axis includes the units of measurement used. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: a support formed in a shape of a bar having one side and another side respectively
Claim 2: a main support body having [[a]] the shape of [[a]] the bar
Claim 9: connected to an end of the at least one amplitude portion
Claim 10: connected to an end of the at least one amplitude portion
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goumault et al. (US20200101683) (of record) in view of Collette et al. (US20050109438) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Goumault (Fig 2, 4-7) discloses a 3-dimensional blade being installed in a vulcanization mold for forming a kerf, the blade comprising:
a frame formed in the shape of a plate (“moulding elements” (1, 2)); and
a support formed in the shape of a bar having one side connected to the frame and the other side connected to another frame, the support further corresponding to a shape of the kerf on a second cross section including the thickness direction (“assembly means” (4)).
While Goumault does not explicitly disclose that the frame has a wave shape, the wave shape corresponding to a shape of the kerf on a first cross section horizontal to a thickness direction, 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
a) Collette, which is within the tire vulcanizing art, teaches that a sipe blade (“blade” (10)) can comprise of a plate with a wave shape having a repetitive shape pattern along a first direction (Fig 1-2, with regards to “vertical direction” (v)) in a cross section horizontal to a thickness direction corresponding to a second direction (Fig 1, 2, with regards to “horizontal direction” (H)) for the benefit of reduced sipe face wear and improved tread wear ([0008]);
b1) Collette teaches that a blade can comprise of at least one continuous row of alternating recesses and protrusions and at least one discontinuous row of alternating recesses and protrusions (Claim 20, [0050], Fig 7B, which would correlate to a non-repetitive shape pattern along the second direction); and
b2) a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that, unless explicitly taught from doing so, the various embodiments taught within the same reference can be modified/combined with each other, especially given that Collette teaches that such combinations are possible ([0052]). Examiner notes that while Fig 7B shows the non-repetitive shape pattern in conjunction with a hexagonal blade and sipe, the language of claim 20 does not limit the shape pattern only to use with a hexagonal blade and sipe.
With regards to the limitation of “wherein the support prevents the frame from being deformed during a process of vulcanizing a tire”, examiner notes that such a limitation is directed towards the intended use of the claimed product and does not further structurally limit said claimed product (see MPEP 2114(II)).
The examiner notes that the claim limitations for “a first direction” and “a second direction” are broad and do not require any positional relationship between the two, nor do they require any positional relationship in relation to their placement within the mold or relative to the frame (for example, a first direction in a height direction of the frame and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction). Moreover, the claim limitation “a thickness direction corresponding to the second direction” does not further establish any positional relationship within the mold either as any “thickness” may be relied upon (for example, thickness in the width, length, or height directions). Accordingly, the prior art discloses the respective directions as currently claimed.
Regarding claim 2, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Goumault teaches that the assembly means can have a variety of shapes ([0045]), including shapes where the support comprises a main support body in a bar shape (Fig 4-7) and where a connecting member exists between the main support body and the frame (Fig 7), modified Goumault teaches that the support comprises a main support body having a shape of a bar and a connecting member formed between the main support body and the frame to connect the main support body and the frame.
Regarding claim 3, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, Goumault teaches that the main support body has the second cross section in the shape of a circle or a polygon (Fig 5-7).
Regarding claim 4, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Additionally, Goumault teaches that a slot located on the assembly means can have a width of less than or equal to 1mm ([0013]) would mean that the assembly means itself has a total width (or radius that is half of the total width for a circle shaped assembly) that has to be greater than that of the slot (otherwise, no slot would exist). Such a total width range would at least include the range of 1.0 - 1.1 mm (or 0.5 – 0.55 mm for a radius), which would be within the claimed range of 0.3 to 1.0 millimeters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application for the second cross section of the main support body to be a circle having a radius of 0.3 to 1.0 millimeters.
While not part of the current rejection set forth above, examiner notes that the instant original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of criticality for the claimed radius of the main support body, as only radii of 0.5 and 0.6 mm, which represent only a portion of the claimed range, has been tested and no radii outside the claimed range have been tested. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (See MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Additionally, Goumault teaches that the main support body and the connecting member comprise a connecting portion having a curvature surface formed having a predetermined curvature radius (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 6, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 5 as set forth above. While Goumault does not explicitly teach that the curvature radius of the connecting portion of the main support body and the connecting member ranges from 0.3 to 1.0 millimeters (mm), 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, as such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component, and such a scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). One would have been motivated to scale the size of the curvature radius to be within the claimed range in order to provide a smooth connection between the assembly means and the moulding element.
While not part of the current rejection set forth above, examiner notes that the instant original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of criticality for the claimed radius of the connecting portion, as only the radius of 0.5 mm, which represent only a singular point of the claimed range, has been tested and no radii outside the claimed range have been tested. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (See MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Additionally, Goumault teaches that the main support body is connected on the outside to an outer plane of the connecting member (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 8, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Collette teaches that the frame comprises a first surface and a second surface that face each other across the thickness direction, the frame further comprising at least one amplitude portion (“vertex” (22)) formed by depressing a part of the first surface and projecting a part of the second surface correspondingly (Fig 1, 2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Additionally, Collette teaches that the frame further comprises a slope portion formed at a connecting portion between the amplitude portion and the support (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 10, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Additionally, Collette teaches that the frame further comprises a plate portion (“vertex” (22)) connected to an end of the amplitude portion and formed in a plate shape (Fig 1, 2).
Regarding claim 11, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 1 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 for the frame to have a thickness equal to or greater than 0.2 mm, given that Goumault teaches that the slot in which the moulding element connects to the assembly means can have a width of less than or equal to 1 mm ([0013]), shows that the moulding element fits into said slot (therefore have at least one portion of the moulding element that is a similar width) and can have a similar thickness along its length (Fig 2, 5-7).
While not part of the current rejection set forth above, examiner notes that the instant original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of criticality for the claimed frame thickness, as only the thickness of 0.5 mm, which represent only a singular point of the claimed range, has been tested and no thicknesses outside the claimed range have been tested. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (See MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goumault et al. (US20200101683) (of record) in view of Rodriquez et al. (US20210188012).
Regarding claim 1, Goumault (Fig 2, 4-7) discloses a 3-dimensional blade being installed in a vulcanization mold for forming a kerf, the blade comprising:
a frame formed in the shape of a plate (“moulding elements” (1, 2)); and
a support formed in the shape of a bar having one side and the other side respectively connected to the frame and the other side connected to another frame along a second direction, the support further corresponding to a shape of the kerf on a second cross section including the thickness direction (“assembly means” (4)).
While Goumault does not explicitly disclose that the frame has a wave shape having a repetitive shape pattern along a first direction and a non-repetitive shape pattern along the second direction, the wave shape corresponding to a shape of the kerf on a first cross section horizontal to a thickness direction corresponding to the second direction, 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 Rodriquez, which is within the tire vulcanizing art, teaches that a sipe blade (“sipe” (100)) can comprise of a plate with a wave shape having a repetitive shape pattern along a first direction (with regards to “direction of wear” (U)) and a non-repetitive shape pattern along a second direction (oriented along (CL)), in a cross section horizontal to a thickness direction corresponding to the second direction (Fig 6-8c, such as along “second surface” (T2)) for the benefit of optimizing rigidity and improving tire performance on wet and/or snow-covered surfaces ([0022]).
The examiner notes that the claim limitations for “a first direction” and “a second direction” are broad and do not require any positional relationship between the two, nor do they require any positional relationship in relation to their placement within the mold or relative to the frame (for example, a first direction in a height direction of the frame and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction). Moreover, the claim limitation “a thickness direction corresponding to the second direction” does not further establish any positional relationship within the mold either as any “thickness” may be relied upon (for example, thickness in the width, length, or height directions). Accordingly, the prior art discloses the respective directions as currently claimed.
With regards to the limitation of “wherein the support prevents the frame from being deformed during a process of vulcanizing a tire”, examiner notes that such a limitation is directed towards the intended use of the claimed product and does not further structurally limit said claimed product (see MPEP 2114(II)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Goumault teaches that the assembly means can have a variety of shapes ([0045]), including shapes where the support comprises a main support body in a bar shape (Fig 4-7) and where a connecting member exists between the main support body and the frame (Fig 7), modified Goumault teaches that the support comprises a main support body having a shape of a bar and a connecting member formed between the main support body and the frame to connect the main support body and the frame.
Regarding claim 3, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, Goumault teaches that the main support body has the second cross section in the shape of a circle or a polygon (Fig 5-7).
Regarding claim 4, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Additionally, Goumault teaches that a slot located on the assembly means can have a width of less than or equal to 1mm ([0013]) would mean that the assembly means itself has a total width (or radius that is half of the total width for a circle shaped assembly) that has to be greater than that of the slot (otherwise, no slot would exist). Such a total width range would at least include the range of 1.0 - 1.1 mm (or 0.5 – 0.55 mm for a radius), which would be within the claimed range of 0.3 to 1.0 millimeters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application for the second cross section of the main support body to be a circle having a radius of 0.3 to 1.0 millimeters.
While not part of the current rejection set forth above, examiner notes that the instant original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of criticality for the claimed radius of the main support body, as only radii of 0.5 and 0.6 mm, which represent only a portion of the claimed range, has been tested and no radii outside the claimed range have been tested. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (See MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Additionally, Goumault teaches that the main support body and the connecting member comprise a connecting portion having a curvature surface formed having a predetermined curvature radius (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 6, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 5 as set forth above. While Goumault does not explicitly teach that the curvature radius of the connecting portion of the main support body and the connecting member ranges from 0.3 to 1.0 millimeters (mm), 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, as such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component, and such a scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). One would have been motivated to scale the size of the curvature radius to be within the claimed range in order to provide a smooth connection between the assembly means and the moulding element.
While not part of the current rejection set forth above, examiner notes that the instant original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of criticality for the claimed radius of the connecting portion, as only the radius of 0.5 mm, which represent only a singular point of the claimed range, has been tested and no radii outside the claimed range have been tested. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (See MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Additionally, Goumault teaches that the main support body is connected on the outside to an outer plane of the connecting member (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 8, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Rodriquez teaches that the frame comprises a first surface and a second surface that face each other across the thickness direction, the frame further comprising at least one amplitude portion formed by depressing a part of the first surface and projecting a part of the second surface correspondingly (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 9, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Additionally, Rodriquez teaches that the frame further comprises a slope portion formed at a connecting portion between the amplitude portion and the support (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 11, modified Goumault teaches all limitations of claim 1 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 for the frame to have a thickness equal to or greater than 0.2 mm, given that Goumault teaches that the slot in which the moulding element connects to the assembly means can have a width of less than or equal to 1 mm ([0013]), shows that the moulding element fits into said slot (therefore have at least one portion of the moulding element that is a similar width) and can have a similar thickness along its length (Fig 2, 5-7).
While not part of the current rejection set forth above, examiner notes that the instant original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of criticality for the claimed frame thickness, as only the thickness of 0.5 mm, which represent only a singular point of the claimed range, has been tested and no thicknesses outside the claimed range have been tested. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (See MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding p.5-6 of applicant’s remarks, applicant again argues with regards to Fig. 11, saying that “Fig. 11 is provided to show a qualitative comparison of relative performance between embodiment 1 and Comparative Example 3” that is “apparent…even without specifying whether the vertical axis is expressed in one particular force unit and whether the horizontal axis is expressed in one particular distance unit” and that “adding units would not change the qualitative disclosure conveyed by Fig. 11”. Examiner again disagrees, as without the units, a person of ordinary skill in the art could not easily determine the significance of the difference between the two. For instance, if the graph represented Friction Force in Newtons and a Sliding Distance in Meters (a relatively large distance), such a difference would be considered minor. However, if the graph was Newtons vs Millimeters (a relatively small distance), such a difference would represent a much greater distinction between the two.
In response to applicant's argument that Goumault’s assembly means is for joining/stiffening as opposed to molding, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Collette does not teach the amended language of claim 1, examiner disagrees as set forth in the rejection above, where Collette teaches that there can be discontinuity in the protrusion/recess pattern (claim 20, Fig 7B, [0050]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Voss et al. (US20110168311) (of record) teaches a 3-dimensional blade comprising a wave-shaped frame plate (“sipe form” (48)) and a bar-shaped support (“sipe-intersecting extension” (50), Fig 6). Collett et al. (US20180326794) teaches a 3-dimensional blade comprising a blade (“sipe portion-forming features” (122)) with an undulating shape in one direction and a non-repetitive shape pattern in a second direction (Fig 4).
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