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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/25/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 4, 6, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wirth et al. (DE 1169651, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Wirth discloses a matrix for a tire mold for vulcanizing tire blanks, the matrix forming a negative mold of a profiled tread of a tire, the matrix having a mold shell (Fig. 1: 1) and a fin plate (Fig. 3: 4) disposed thereon, the mold shell forming a mold inside and the fin plate forming a web of the negative mold, a slit (Figs. 2-4: 2, 3, 8) being formed in the mold shell ([0017]), the fin plate (Fig. 3: 4) being inserted into the slit and attached to the mold shell ([0010], [0017]), wherein the slit penetrates a mold wall of the mold shell and extends from the mold inside to a mold back side of the mold shell (Fig. 1), the fin plate (Fig. 3: 4) being bonded to the mold shell (Fig. 1: 1) from the mold back side ([0010], [0017]), the slit has a first portion which extends from the mold inside (See annotated Fig. 3 below), and a second portion which extends from the mold back side and ends in the first portion (See annotated Fig. 3 below), the fin plate is inserted in such a manner that the fin plate penetrates the first portion and protrudes out of the first portion and into the second portion and at least partially extends along a depth direction of the slit in the second portion (See annotated Fig. 3 below), and the shape of the slit follows a cross-sectional shape of the fin plate in the first portion and the shape of the slit does not follow the cross-sectional shape of the fin plate slit in the second portion (See annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
483
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that "first portion" and "second portion" are broad and do not require any particular structure or boundaries that would distinguish them over Wirth. The claim merely requires the slit to have a broad and vague first portion that extends from the mold inside and a broad and vague second portion that extends from the mold back side and connects with the first portion. Accordingly, any portion within the slit starting at the mold inside and extending towards the mold back side without reaching it, and any portion starting at the mold back side and extending toward the mold inside and connecting to the first portion will satisfy the claim limitation, such as the structure disclosed by Wirth.
Regarding claim 4, Wirth further discloses the slit is a bore (i.e., simple cutout) in the second portion (Figs. 2-3: 2, 3) ([0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Wirth further discloses an upper length of the fin plate (Fig. 3: 4) is greater than a length of the slit (See annotated Fig. 3 above in claim 1) in the first portion ([0014]: wherein the depth of the slit first portion 8 into which the fin plate 4 is fitted is at least 20% of the protruding fin plate height, i.e., less than the fin plate height).
Regarding claim 10, Wirth further discloses the fin plate (Figs. 1-3: 4) at least partially has an undulating cross section within the slit (Figs. 1-3: 2, 3, 8).
The examiner notes that the claim limitation does not specify which cross-sectional direction (i.e., the cross-section in the radial, circumferential, or axial direction).
Regarding claim 11, Wirth further discloses the fin plate (Figs. 1-3: 4) is at least partially in contact with a shoulder formed in the slit (Fig. 3: 7).
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) 3, 5, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wirth et al. (DE 1169651, see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Wirth further discloses that the length of the slit in the first portion is adjustable as compared to the fin plate height so as to have a tight press fit of the fin plate into the slit ([0014]), wherein the fin plate height can also be adjusted quite precisely to reliably avoid different sipe depths in the tire ([0012]). Wirth also discloses the roots of the fin plate in the second portion of the slit anchor the fin plate into the mold ([0006]). While Wirth does not explicitly disclose the value for a depth of the first portion or a distance between the mold inside and the mold back side, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said depth and distance. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize a depth of the first portion and a distance between the mold inside and the mold back side in order to tightly press fit the fin plate into the slit, reliably avoid different sipe depths in the tire, and anchor the fin plate into the mold.
Regarding claim 5, while the bore holes of Wirth are illustrated as circular (Figs. 1-5: 2, 3), case law holds that changes in shape are matters of design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See MPEP 2144.04. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to slightly vary the shape of the slit in the second portion such that the slit is an oblong hole in the second portion.
Regarding claim 7, while Wirth does not expressly recite or illustrate that a length of the slit in the first portion is greater than a length of the slit in the second portion, Wirth does disclose that the length of the slit in the first portion is adjustable as compared to the fin plate height so as to have a tight press fit of the fin plate into the slit ([0014]), wherein the fin plate height can also be adjusted quite precisely to reliably avoid different sipe depths in the tire ([0012]). Wirth further discloses the roots of the fin plate in the second portion of the slit anchor the fin plate into the mold ([0006]). While Wirth does not explicitly disclose the value for the length of the slit in the first portion relative to the length of the slit in the second portion, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said lengths. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the length of the slit in the first portion relative to the length of the slit in the second portion in order to tightly press fit the fin plate into the slit, reliably avoid different sipe depths in the tire, and anchor the fin plate into the mold.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wirth et al. (DE 1169651, see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyazaki (JP 4983717, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Wirth does not expressly recite how the slit is formed. In particular, Wirth does not expressly recite the slit is formed by milling and/or spark erosion.
Miyazaki discloses a vulcanization mold and method for manufacturing the same, wherein blades (i.e., fin plates) (Figs. 1-11: 6) are provided in the mold within holes/slits (Figs. 1-11: 3, 5), wherein the holes are formed by machining such as cutting or electrical discharge machining (i.e., milling or spark erosion) so it can be formed with high precision without variation to the set dimensions ([0014]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to form the slits of Wirth using a generally known method in the art, such as milling or spark erosion, for the advantages discussed above as taught by Miyazaki.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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 on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights