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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant's arguments regarding the rejections based on Narita have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Narita does not disclose the limitations added to claim 1 that the base member includes a centering portion provided on an inner side of the tire side support surface in a tire radial direction and facing a bead bottom surface of the tire, wherein the centering portion extends annularly along the tire circumferential direction.
In particular, the applicant argues that “the portion of the lower clamp 18 highlighted by the Examiner in Fig. 2 of Narita is provided before the bead bottom surface of the tire radial direction and therefore does not face it”. The applicant also argues that “the portion of the lower clamp 18 highlighted by the Examiner in Fig. 2 of Narita does not extend annularly along the tire circumferential direction”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant appears to be mistaking the bladder 15 of Narita for the tire 9 of Narita. The annotated version of Fig. 2 of Narita has been updated to label additional structure to assist the applicant. See below in the rejection of claim 1. The identified portion of the lower clamp 18 does face the bead bottom surface of the tire. Additionally, as can be seen on the right side of the annotated figure, the identified portion of the lower clamp 18 follows the inner perimeter of the tire such that it extends annularly along the tire circumferential direction.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the last line, “the tire circumferential direction” should be replaced with “a tire circumferential direction” for consistency with “a tire axial direction” and “a tire radial direction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0332143 (“Narita”).
Regarding claim 1, Narita discloses a tire conicity correction device (Fig. 2, [0029]. See also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115.) comprising:
a base member (at least the lower mold part 12 and lower clamp 18, Fig. 2, [0030]-[0031]) on which a tire is horizontally placed with a tire axial direction coincident with a vertical direction (Fig. 2, [0029]-[0031]. See also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115.);
a heater configured to heat the base member (the second heat source 12a, Fig. 2, [0030]); and
a tire side support surface provided on the base member to support a side outer surface of the tire (Fig. 2, [0030]. - See also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115.),
wherein the tire side support surface includes a first curved surface curved along a profile of the side outer surface of the tire (Fig. 2. See also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115.),
the base member includes a centering portion provided on an inner side of the tire side support surface in a tire radial direction and facing a bead bottom surface of the tire (See the annotated version of Fig. 2 provided below. See also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115.),
PNG
media_image1.png
378
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the centering portion extends annularly along the tire circumferential direction (See the annotated version of Fig. 2 provided above. See also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115.).
Regarding claim 3, Narita discloses that the base member includes a main body portion that is heated by the heater (the lower mold part 12, Fig. 2, [0030]), and a detachable portion detachable from the main body portion (The lower clamp 18. Fig. 2 shows that the lower clamp 18 is separate from the lower mold part 12, and [0030] discloses that the tread mold part 11, lower mold part 12, and upper mold part 13 are formed to be freely shifted between a mold-closed state and a mold-open state by means of an opening/closing mechanism. This indicates that the lower clamp 18 is detachable from the lower mold part 12.), and
the tire side support surface is provided on the detachable portion (As shown in Fig. 2, a portion of the tire side support surface is provided on the lower clamp 18.).
Regarding claim 5, Narita discloses that the first curved surface faces an area including a range from a rim line to a parting line of the tire (Fig. 2. See also MPEP 2114(II) and 2115.).
Regarding claim 6, Narita discloses that the first curved surface has a downwardly curved concave shape with respect to the vertical direction (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Narita discloses that the tire side support surface further includes a second curved surface having an upwardly curved convex shape with respect to the vertical direction (see the annotated version of Fig. 2 provided below), and
the second curved surface is contiguous to an inner side of the first curved surface in a tire radial direction (see id.).
PNG
media_image2.png
592
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Narita discloses that the second curved surface is smaller in curvature radius than the first curved surface (see the annotated version of Fig. 2 provided above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narita.
Regarding claim 4, Narita discloses that the heater includes:
a jacket tank filled with a heating medium ([0030], [0036], which disclose the use of steam jackets for heating the mold parts).
Narita does not explicitly disclose a feed line to which a feed source of the heating medium is connected, the heating medium being fed to the jacket tank through the feed line. However, such structure is well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a feed line and feed source for feeding steam to the steam jacket of Narita, especially given that Narita discloses a supplying pipe 24 for supplying a heating medium from a heating medium supplying source 23 to the bladder 15 (Fig. 2, [0032], [0036]). This would represent a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Fig. 2 of Narita does not clearly show that the tire side support surface further includes a third curved surface having a downwardly curved concave shape with respect to the vertical direction, and the third curved surface is contiguous to an inner side of the second curved surface in the tire radial direction. In Fig. 2, the surface contiguous with the inner side of the second curved surface in the tire radial direction does not appear to be curved (see the annotated version of Fig. 2 provided below).
PNG
media_image3.png
592
880
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, the surfaces of the lower mold part 12 and lower clamp 18 that are in contact with the tire 9 are shaped so as to match the surface of the tire 9 (Fig. 2), and Fig. 1 of Narita shows that the portion of the tire 9 located at the third surface identified above is curved (see the annotated version of Fig. 1 provided below).
PNG
media_image4.png
432
702
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it is expected that, while not clearly shown in Fig. 2, the third surface would have a curve to match the corresponding portion of the tire 9, which would result in the surface having a downwardly curved concave shape with respect to the vertical direction, as claimed. Alternatively, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given that the mold 10 of Narita is generally shaped so as to match the tire 9.
Regarding claim 10, Narita discloses that the third curved surface is smaller in curvature radius than the second curved surface (see the rejection of claim 9 and Figs. 1-2 of Narita, particularly the portion of the tire 9 identified in the annotated version of Fig. 1).
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 John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM-6:00 PM ET.
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, Sam Zhao, can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights