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
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 7-10, 13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (JP2000102925) (machine translation) (of record) in view of Jaroszewicz (WO2020128798).
Regarding claim 7, Ishihara discloses a sipe blade for molding a sipe (“sipe forming bone” (2)), which is provided in a tire molding mold for molding a tire (“mold” (3)), the sipe blade comprising:
a plurality of members that are overlapping (“bone pieces” (21-23), [0012]) that are made of a rolled material ([0006]) that are individually formed to have a constant thickness ([0010], [0012], Fig 4, 5).
While Ishihara does not explicitly disclose that the sipe blade further comprises a cap blade formed in a teardrop shape in which one side thereof is tapered off in a cross-section view orthogonal to an extension direction and has a groove on a tapered-off tip side, wherein the plurality of members are inserted into the groove of the cap blade, 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 Jaroszewicz, which is within the tire sipe art, teaches that a sipe blade (“sipe elements” (12, 20)) can comprise of a cap blade formed in a teardrop shape in which one side thereof is tapered off in a cross-section view orthogonal to an extension direction (“teardrop section” (16, 24)) and has a groove on a tapered-off tip side (“slot” (30), Fig 7, 12, 13), wherein the plurality of members are inserted into the groove of the cap blade (Fig 7, 12, 13, [0038]) for the benefit of keeping alignment between different sipe blades that form a continuous sipe in the tire ([0028]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ishihara teaches all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above. Additionally, Ishihara teaches that the plurality of members are overlapped each other on a part of a peripheral portion of each of the members (Fig 4, 5, in that “bone pieces” 22 and 23 overlap with “bone piece” 21 along a portion of the bottom, left and right edges of the “sipe forming bone” 2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ishihara teaches all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above. Additionally, Ishihara teaches that due to the overlapping, the sipe blade has a portion thick in thickness and a portion thin in thickness (Fig 4, 5).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ishihara teaches all limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Additionally, Ishihara teaches that due to the overlapping, the sipe blade has a portion thick in thickness and a portion thin in thickness (Fig 4, 5).
Regarding claim 13, Ishihara teaches a tire molding mold (“mold” (3)) that is provided with the sipe blade according to claim 7, as set forth above (Fig 4, 5).
Regarding claim 15, Ishihara teaches a tire molding mold (“mold” (3)) that is provided with the sipe blade according to claim 8, as set forth above (Fig 4, 5).
Regarding claim 16, Ishihara teaches a tire molding mold (“mold” (3)) that is provided with the sipe blade according to claim 9, as set forth above (Fig 4, 5).
Regarding claim 17 Ishihara teaches a tire molding mold (“mold” (3)) that is provided with the sipe blade according to claim 10, as set forth above (Fig 4, 5).
Claim(s) 11, 12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (JP2000102925) (machine translation) (of record) and Jaroszewicz (WO2020128798) as evidenced by Wikipedia (NPL) (of record).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ishihara teaches all limitations of claim 9 as set forth above. While Ishihara does not explicitly disclose that the side blade is arranged so that the thin portion of the sipe comes to a position leading to a main groove of the tire, 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) examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the tire art to have sipes in the tread that connect to a main groove of a tire, as evidenced by Wikipedia, which shows a tire tread with sipes that open on the sides to the grooves of the tire (NPL); and
b) given that Ishihara’s “sipe forming bone” (2) is arranged to form sipes at desired positions (Fig 4, 5), including sipes connected to a tire groove as shown in Wikipedia, such sipe forming bones would be arranged to reach the grooves, where the thin portion of the sipe blade would be in a position leading to a main groove.
Regarding claim 12, modified Ishihara teaches all limitations of claim 10 as set forth above. While Ishihara does not explicitly disclose that the side blade is arranged so that the thin portion of the sipe comes to a position leading to a main groove of the tire, 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) examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the tire art to have sipes in the tread that connect to a main groove of a tire, as evidenced by Wikipedia, which shows a tire tread with sipes that open on the sides to the grooves of the tire (NPL); and
b) given that Ishihara’s “sipe forming bone” (2) is arranged to form sipes at desired positions (Fig 4, 5), including sipes connected to a tire groove as shown in Wikipedia, such sipe forming bones would be arranged to reach the grooves, where the thin portion of the sipe blade would be in a position leading to a main groove.
Regarding claim 18, modified Ishihara teaches a tire molding mold (“mold” (3)) that is provided with the sipe blade according to claim 11, as set forth above (Fig 4, 5).
Regarding claim 19, modified Ishihara teaches a tire molding mold (“mold” (3)) that is provided with the sipe blade according to claim 12, as set forth above (Fig 4, 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Domange et al. (US20020134202) (of record) discloses a sipe blade (“composite blade” (300)) for a tire mold comprising of overlapping a plurality of members (“strips” (101, 201)) with constant thickness (Fig 11-17) to form a wide variety of shapes ([0030]).
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
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744