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 § 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) 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murugesan et al. (IN201841016710) (of record) in view of Singh et al. (US20160009040) (of record) as evidenced by Variohm (NPL).
Regarding claim 1, Murugesan discloses a tire curing press, comprising:
a top structure (“top structure” (1)),
a bottom structure” (“bottom structure” (2)),
a first hollow cylinder mounted below the bottom structure and capable of being extended during curing and retracted post-curing of a tire (“hollow squeeze cylinder” (6)),
a second hollow cylinder mounted below the bottom structure at a fixed distance from the first hollow cylinder, and capable of being extended during curing and retracted post-curing of the tire (“hollow squeeze cylinder” (6), [0029]),
a first column (“squeeze column” (5)) having a lower end mounted inside a first hollow piston (“hollow squeeze piston” (12)) slidably mounted inside the first hollow cylinder ([0029]),
a second column (“squeeze column” (5)) having a lower end mounted inside a second hollow piston (“hollow squeeze piston” (12)) slidably mounted inside the second hollow cylinder ([0029]),
wherein the top structure is capable of sliding along the first and second columns in a direction towards or away from the bottom structure (Fig 1-2),
height adjustment grooves formed at an intermediate position on each of the first and second columns to obtain variable heights between the top and bottom structures and to accommodate different sizes of tire molds (“plurality of grooves” (25, 26, 27)),
a first lock assembly assembled concentric to the first column above the top structure (“double groove locking system” (4)),
a second lock assembly assembled concentric to the second column above the top structure (“double groove locking system” (4), [0032]),
each of the first and second lock assemblies comprises clamping plates capable of being pulled towards each other to engage with the height adjustment grooves and to lock the top structure with the first and second columns during curing (“slide plates” (15), [0035]),
a first control means to disengage the clamping plates from the height adjustment grooves of the first column when a predetermined distance is reached (“lock cylinder” (16), [0035]), and
a second control means to disengage the clamping plates from the height adjustment grooves of the second column when a predetermined distance is reached (“lock cylinder” (16), [0035]).
While Murugesan does not explicitly disclose that the apparatus comprises a first distance sensor to determine a distance between the height adjustment grooves of the first column and the clamping plates of the first lock assembly when the first hollow cylinder is retracted post-curing of the tire, a second distance sensor to determine a distance between the height adjustment grooves of the second column and the clamping plates of the second lock assembly when the second hollow cylinder is retracted post-curing of the tire, and that the first and second control means do their respective disengagement when the predetermined distance for the first and second distance sensor is sensed (respectively), 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) Murugesan teaches that the plurality of grooves are designed to lock the upper mold plate in place during loading/unloading ([0036]), meaning the bottom of a given groove supports the upper mold plate’s weight and the distance between the groove’s bottom and the mechanism used to lock the upper mold plate in place is zero and to avoid the explosion of the bladder due to a malfunction in the hydraulics of the hollow piston by limiting the pitch distance between grooves to be less than that of the piston’s stroke length ([0042]), meaning that during a malfunction, the upper mold is supported by the top of the given groove support and the distance between the groove’s top and the mechanism used to lock the upper mold plate in place is zero; and
b) Singh, which is within the tire molding art, teaches that a tire molding system can comprise of the use of sensors (“electronic lock sensors” (110)) for detecting the axial relationship between tire mold components, in particular, for the purpose of enabling/disabling a positioning-locking mechanism of an upper mold plate and allowing an operator to determine the state of the locking mechanism ([0034], [0036]-[0038], [0045]-[0047]);
c1) Singh additionally teaches that said sensors can be selected from a variety, including “linear position sensors” ([0038]);
c2) with “linear position sensors” being , as evidenced by Variohm, taught to be used in a variety of environments to “measure the distance between a physical object and a point of reference in a straight line” and “can also measure a change in position and give accurate feedback on displacement in various applications and environments“ (NPL);
d) a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that by measuring the distance between the locking mechanism and either the top and/or bottom of the groove by a distance sensor during a given phase of the tire curing process, they could determine the current state of the tire curing press and whether the locking mechanism should be engaged/disengaged.
Regarding claim 2, Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Murugesan does not explicitly teach that the first and second control means are independently actuated, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that there is a finite number of ways to operate the first and second control means: either in conjunction with one another or separately. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that when there is a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options with his or her technical grasp (See MPEP 2143(I)(E)). 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 to independently actuate the first and second control means to ensure that if one control means malfunctions, the other is still functional to ensure safe operation of the tire curing press.
Regarding claim 3, modified Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Murugesan teaches that the tire curing press further comprises an upper tire mold (“mold” (19)) fixed on an upper tire mold platen (“heat plate” (18)) and assembled to the top structure, and a lower tire mold (“mold” (19)) fixed on a lower tire mold platen (“heat plate” (18)) and assembled to the bottom structure, wherein the top structure is pulled downward and the upper tire mold is squeezed against the lower tire mold when a hydraulic pressure is created in the at least two hollow cylinders (Fig 7, [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Additionally, Murugesan teaches that a predetermined mold opening gap is maintained between the upper tire mold and the lower tire mold if the hydraulic pressure is lesser than a predetermined value (“predetermined gap” (22), [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 4 as set forth above. Additionally, Murugesan teaches that the predetermined mold opening gap is maintained by setting a stroke length S of the first and/or the second hollow pistons and a pitch distance P between the height adjustment grooves, such that S > P, where max. value of gap is maintained at about 0 to 50 mm ([0042], which is within the claimed range of 0 to 60 mm), and the predetermined mold opening gap is maintained at about 0 to 50 mm ([0042], which is within the claimed range of 0 to 60 mm).
Regarding claim 7, modified Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Murugesan teaches that the tire curing press further comprises a first lift cylinder assembled to the bottom structure (“lift cylinder” (3)), a second lift cylinder assembled to the bottom structure at a fixed distance from the first lift cylinder (“lift cylinder” (3), [0030]), a connecting rod end of each of the first and second lift cylinders is connected to the top structure by a rod end retainer (“rod-end retainer” (7)), wherein the first and second lift cylinders are capable of extending and retracting to slidably move the top structure along the first and second columns in a direction towards or away from the bottom structure, respectively (Fig 1, 2).
Regarding claim 8, modified Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Murugesan teaches that each of the first and second lock assemblies comprises at least one lock cylinder capable of being actuated to engage or disengage the clamping plates to/from the height adjustment grooves (“lock cylinder” (16), [0035]). While Murugesan does not explicitly teach that the at least one lock cylinder is capable of being independently actuated, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that there is a finite number of ways to operate the first and second lock cylinders: either in conjunction with one another or separately. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that when there is a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options with his or her technical grasp (See MPEP 2143(I)(E)). 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 to independently actuate the at least one lock cylinder to ensure that if a separate lock cylinder malfunctions, the at least one is still functional to ensure safe operation of the tire curing press.
Regarding claim 10, modified Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Murugesan teaches that a linear displacement sensor is fixed to the bottom structure (“differential transformer” (9)) and a sensor magnet is fixed to the top structure to provide a position of the sliding top structure at any given instant (“sensor magnet” (10), [0033]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Murugesan teaches that at least one limit switch is mounted above the bottom structure, to sense the position of the first and second hollow pistons inside the first and second hollow cylinders (“limit switch” (11), [0030]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Murugesan teaches that the tire curing press comprises at least one mold height setting mechanism having an adjustable mold height switch placed on the bottom structure to adjust the stopping position of the top structure (“split ring” (8), [0030]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Additionally, Murugesan teaches that a curing pressure is developed inside the upper and lower tire molds by pumping fluid media inside the upper and lower tire molds to provide appropriate pressure and temperature to cure the tire ([0039]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that the act of “the hollow squeeze cylinders [[being]] pumped with hydraulic fluid” means that some amount of flow control means is implemented to fill the hollow squeeze cylinders ([0039]), Murugesan teaches that the tire curing press comprises a first flow control means to control the speed of the first hollow cylinder, and a second flow means to control the speed of the second hollow cylinder.
Regarding claim 22, modified Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Murugesan teaches that each clamping plate comprises a semicircle cut-out (“semicircle jaws” (17)) and an inner groove (“groove”, [0035]), such that pulling the clamping plates towards each other engages the semicircle cut-out and the inner groove to at least two of the height adjustment grooves ([0035]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Murugesan teaches that the tire curing press comprises a first holding means to secure the lower end of the first column with the first hollow piston (“rod-end retainer” (7)), and a second holding means to secure the lower end of the second column with the second hollow piston (“rod-end retainer” (7)).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murugesan et al. (IN201841016710) (of record), Singh et al. (US20160009040) (of record) and Variohm (NPL) as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above and as evidenced by Sang-hyuk et al. (KR200370446) (machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 12, modified Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While modified Murugesan does not explicitly teach that the first and second control means are directional control valves, 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 Murugesan teaches that the tire curing press is operated with hydraulic oil pressure ([0042]) and, as evidenced by Sang-hyuk with regards to hydraulic pressure systems, pressure control valves (which control the movement of pressure via directional movement of components) are a “commonly known structure” ([32]).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murugesan et al. (IN201841016710) (of record), Singh et al. (US20160009040) (of record) and Variohm (NPL) as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above and in further view of Sang-hyuk et al. (KR200370446) (machine translation) (of record) and Ayers (NPL) (of record).
Regarding claim 13, modified Murugesan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Murugesan does teach the use of a hydraulic pressure system in connection to a hydraulic pressure source ([0039]), they are silent regarding the specific structures used within said system, including actuation means, position retaining means, pressure retaining means, pressure control means, pressure relief valve, backflow preventer or pressure control valves, 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) Sang-hyuk, with regards to hydraulic pressure systems, teaches that actuation means (including solenoid valves), pressure control valves and pressure relief valves are “commonly known structures” ([32])
b) Sang-hyuk teaches that a pressure retaining means and backflow preventer means, which both include a check valve, can be implemented in the hydraulic pressure system for the benefit of establishing control of a flow in one direction ([33])
c) Sang-hyuk teaches the use of a pressure control means, including an orifice disk in the form a hole, can be implemented in the hydraulic pressure system for the benefit of suppressing overpressure occurrence ([31])
d) Ayers, with regards to hydraulic pressure systems, teaches that a hydraulic pressure system can comprise of a positioning retaining means in the form of a counterbalance valve for the benefit of safely holding suspended loads and deal with over-running loads (p.1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On p.13-15 and 17 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that the sensors used in Singh are only for detecting an axial position of the lock rod and relate only to a segment mold operator and therefore wouldn’t relate to the curing press of Murugesan. Examiner disagrees, noting that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Singh’s use of sensors relates to the determining the state of a locking mechanism used in a tire curing press ([0034], [0036]-[0038], [0045]-[0047]) would be relevant to other tire curing presses, including Murugesan’s “tire curing press apparatus” ([0006]).
On p. 12-16 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that the sensors in Singh “are position sensors and not distance sensors as claimed in the present” (p.16 L1-2) and therefore Singh’s teaching of using sensors for controlling distance relationships between tire mold components does not meet the claimed limitation. Examiner disagrees, noting that the types of sensors taught in Singh include the linear position sensors ([0038]), which, as evidenced by Variohm (NPL), are explicitly “used to measure the distance between a physical object and a point of reference in a straight line” (NPL), and therefore, based on applicant’s interpretation, would meet the claim limitations.
On p.15-16 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that the sensor mechanism of Singh would not be used to determine the distance between height adjustment grooves of the columns and the clamping plates of the lock assemblies as it only determines and visually indicates locked/unlocked condition. Examiner disagrees, noting that while Singh does teach that the sensor is used to indicate in a locked/unlocked position ([0045]-[0046]), Singh teaches that multiple positions, besides just the locked and unlocked positions, could be detected by the sensor ([0038], “of course, it is contemplated that the lock sensor 110 can detect even more vertically spaced-apart positions of the sensor target 112”). Given that Murugesan is concerned about the use of the grooves for working with various heights for various tire sizes ([0036]), such variable heights represent “more vertically spaced-apart positions of the sensor target”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the sensors taught by Singh could be used in first and second control means as taught by Murugesan. Additionally, examiner notes that Singh does not explicitly discourage the use of the sensors outside of just to “merely determine and visually indicate the locked and unlocked condition” of the tire curing press as it does not explicitly “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed” (See MPEP 2141.02(VI)).
In response to applicant's argument on p.16 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Refer to the claim 1 rejection as set forth above as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Singh with Murugesan.
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