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 Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10: blade is provided with [[a]] the accommodation groove which is communicated…
Claim 11: blade is provided with [[a]] the accommodation groove which is communicated…
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 6, 7, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishihara ‘925 (JP2000102925A) (machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 6, Ishihara ‘925 discloses a sipe blade (“bone” (2)) which is implanted in a base mold (“tire mold” (3)) and which molds a sipe in a tire, comprising:
a first blade (“bone piece” (21)) molded by pressing a plate member, the first blade including a first molding surface and a second molding surface opposite the first molding surface (Fig 6, 7); and
a second blade (“bone pieces” (22, 23)) having a thickness greater than a thickness of the first blade (Fig 6, 7, [0012]),
wherein the second blade comprises: a contact portion which extends along an outer periphery of the first blade implanted in the base mold (Fig 6, 7) and with which the first molding surface of the first blade comes in contact along a peripheral edge portion of the first blade (Fig 6, 7), or
a fitting portion which accommodates the peripheral edge portion of the first blade and with which the first molding surfaces and the second molding surface come in contact (Fig 6, 7, [0014]); and
a vent passage along an accommodation groove (“vent hole” (5)), wherein
the peripheral edge portion extends in a width direction on a side opposite to a surface to be embedded into the base mold (Fig 6, 7, in regards to the top of “bone” (2)), and
the peripheral edge portion and a portion of the second blade that extends vertically from the peripheral edge portion to the surface to be embedded have a combined thickness greater than that of other portions of the sipe blades (Fig 6, 7).
Examiner notes that the limitation of “a first blade molded by pressing a plate member” is considered a product by process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed invention (See MPEP 2113). Furthermore, examiner notes the newly amended limitation “a vent passage along an accommodation groove” is not currently further defined by other portions of claim 6, including “a fitting portion which accommodates the peripheral edge portion…” as said “fitting portion” is disclosed as an alternative to “a contact portion” meaning said “vent passage along an accommodation groove” is present whether the sipe blade comprises “a contact portion” or “a fitting portion”.
Regarding claim 7, Ishihara ‘925 discloses all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Additionally, Ishihara ‘925 discloses that a part of the second blade is included in a part of a molded item to be molded in the tire by the base mold (Fig 6, 7).
Regarding claim 12, Ishihara ‘925 discloses a tire mold (“tire mold” (3)) comprises the sipe blade with the limitations as set forth above in claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, Ishihara ‘925 discloses a tire mold (“tire mold” (3)) comprises the sipe blade with the limitations as set forth above in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6, 7, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennessey (GB1379592) (of record) in view of Lutz et al. (EP3415343A1) and Takahashi (JP2000211320A) (machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Hennessey discloses a sipe blade which is implanted in a base mold (“mould” (1)) and which molds a sipe in a tire, comprising:
a first blade (“knife blade” (2)) molded by pressing a plate member, the first blade including a first molding surface and a second molding surface opposite the first molding surface (Fig 2, left and right sides of “knife blade” (2)); and
a second blade (“roll-pins” (3, 4)) having a thickness greater than a thickness of the first blade (Fig 2,3),
wherein the second blade comprises: a contact portion which extends along an outer periphery of the first blade implanted in the base mold (Fig 2, 3) and with which the first molding surface comes in contact along a peripheral edge portion of the first blade (Fig 2),
a vent passage along an accommodation groove (Fig 2, 3, with regards to the gap in “roll-pins” (3, 4)), wherein
the peripheral edge portion extends in a width direction on a side opposite to a surface to be embedded into the base mold (Fig 1, right side of “knife blade” (2)), and
a portion of the second blade that extends vertically from the peripheral edge portion to the surface to be embedded has a thickness greater than that of the portions of the sipe blade (Fig 2).
While Hennessey discloses a fitting portion which accommodates part of the peripheral edge portion of the first blade and with which both the first molding surface and the second molding surface come in contact (Fig 2, 3), Hennessey does not explicitly disclose that instead of a contact portion, the second blade comprises a fitting portion which accommodates the peripheral edge portion of the first blade (interpreted by the examiner as in its entirety as in Fig 4A-C of applicant’s original disclosure) and with which both the first molding surface and the second molding surface come in contact and that the peripheral edge portion along with the portion of the second blade that extends vertically from the peripheral edge portion to the surface to be embedded have a combined thickness greater than that of other portions of the sipe blade. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application date to do so, given that:
a) Lutz, which is within the tire sipe art, teaches that the use of sipes with wider profiles along their radially inner-most part (which, when molding, would correspond to the peripheral edge of a sipe blade) is known in the prior art forth the benefit of a tire’s wet performance ([0004]-[0007]);
b1) Takahashi, which is within the tire sipe art, similarly teaches the use of sipes with wider profiles along their radially inner-most part for improved tire wet performance ([0002]-[0004]) and that a method of creating this wider profile comes in the form of using a sipe blade that, in addition to a first blade (“rectangular plate/s (42, 44)), comprises a second blade (“cylindrical body” (46)) that itself comprises a fitting portion which accommodates a peripheral edge portion of the first blade that extends in a width direction on a side opposite to a surface to be embedded into the base mold (Fig 1, 2 and 4) and with which both a first and second molding surface would come into contact with (Fig 4) and an accommodation groove (“groove” (50)); and
b2) given that both Takahashi and Hennessey teach second blades that accommodate an outer periphery of a first blade and have accommodation grooves, it would be well within a person of ordinary skill in the art’s ability to modify Takahashi’s “groove” (50) so as to have a vent passage similar to that of Hennessey for the predictable result of requiring less material be used to construct Takahashi’s “cylindrical body” (46)).
Examiner notes that the limitation of “a first blade molded by pressing a plate member” is considered a product by process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed invention (See MPEP 2113). Furthermore, examiner notes the newly amended limitation “a vent passage along an accommodation groove” is not currently further defined by other portions of claim 6, including “a fitting portion which accommodates the peripheral edge portion…” as said “fitting portion” is disclosed as an alternative to “a contact portion” meaning said “vent passage along an accommodation groove” is present whether the sipe blade comprises “a contact portion” or “a fitting portion”.
Regarding claim 7, modified Hennessey teaches all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Additionally, Hennessey teaches that a part of the second blade is included in a part of a molded item to be molded in the tire by the base mold (Fig 1, 2).
Regarding claim 12, Hennessey discloses a tire mold (“mould” (1)) comprises the sipe blade with the limitations as set forth above in claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, Hennessey discloses a tire mold (“mould” (1)) comprises the sipe blade with the limitations as set forth above in claim 7.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennessey (GB1379592), Lutz et al. (EP3415343A1) and Takahashi (JP2000211320A) (machine translation) in further view of Ishihara ‘111 (US20180319111) (of record).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hennessey teaches all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Additionally, Hennessey teaches that the sipe blade comprises a gap, which is generated in the contact portion where the first blade and the second blade come in contact or which is generated in the fitting portion (Fig 1-3). While modified Hennessey does not explicitly disclose that the gap is communicated with a vent hole provided in the base mold, 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 Ishihara ‘111, which is within the tire molding art, teaches that a sipe blade (“sipe blade” (26)) used for tire molding is attached to a base mold (“vulcanizing mold” (25)) in which a gap in the sipe blade (“distal end path” (47)) is in communication with a vent in the tire mold (“discharge path” (40), [[0030]) for the predictable result of venting gas during tire vulcanization while allowing for easy clog elimination ([0030]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hennessey teaches all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above. Additionally, Hennessey teaches that the sipe blade comprises a gap, which is generated in the contact portion where the first blade and the second blade come in contact or which is generated in the fitting portion (Fig 1-3). While Hennessey does not explicitly disclose that the gap is communicated with a vent hole provided in the base mold, 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 Ishihara ‘111, which is within the tire molding art, teaches that a sipe blade (“sipe blade” (26)) used for tire molding is attached to a base mold (“vulcanizing mold” (25)) in which a gap in the sipe blade (“distal end path” (47)) is in communication with a vent in the tire mold (“discharge path” (40), [[0030]) for the predictable result of venting gas during tire vulcanization while allowing for easy clog elimination ([0030]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hennessey teaches all limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Additionally, modified Hennessey teaches that the second blade is provided with a groove (Fig 2, 3), which is communicated with the vent hole and extends along the contact portion where the first blade and the second blade come in contact or along the fitting portion (Fig 2, 3).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hennessey teaches all limitations of claim 9 as set forth above. Additionally, modified Hennessey teaches that the second blade is provided with a groove (Fig 2, 3), which is communicated with the vent hole and extends along the contact portion where the first blade and the second blade come in contact or along the fitting portion (Fig 2, 3).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hennessey teaches a tire mold (“mould” (1)) comprises the sipe blade with the limitations as set forth above in claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, modified Hennessey teaches a tire mold (“mould” (1)) comprises the sipe blade with the limitations as set forth above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, modified Hennessey teaches a tire mold (“mould” (1)) comprises the sipe blade with the limitations as set forth above in claim 10.
Regarding claim 17, modified Hennessey teaches a tire mold (“mould” (1)) comprises the sipe blade with the limitations as set forth above in claim 11.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara ‘925 (JP2000102925A) (machine translation) (of record) in view of Ishihara ‘111 (US20180319111) (of record).
Regarding claim 8, Ishihara ‘925 discloses all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. While Ishihara ‘925 does disclose the gap (“vent hole” (5)) which is generated in the contact portion where the first blade and the second blade come in contact (Fig 6, 7, in that “vent holes” (5) are not in the center of “bone” (2) and considered as part of the claimed “outer periphery”), Ishihara ‘925 does not disclose that the gap is communicated with a vent hole provided in the base mold. However, 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 Ishihara ‘111, which is within the tire molding art, teaches that a sipe blade (“sipe blade” (26)) used for tire molding is attached to a base mold (“vulcanizing mold” (25)) in which a gap in the sipe blade (“distal end path” (47)) is in communication with a vent in the tire mold (“discharge path” (40), [[0030]) for the predictable result of venting gas during tire vulcanization while allowing for easy clog elimination ([0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Ishihara ‘925 discloses all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above. While Ishihara ‘925 does disclose the gap (“vent hole” (5)) which is generated in the contact portion where the first blade and the second blade come in contact (Fig 6, 7, in that “vent holes” (5) are not in the center of “bone” (2) and considered as part of the claimed “outer periphery”), Ishihara ‘925 does not disclose that the gap is communicated with a vent hole provided in the base mold. However, 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 Ishihara ‘111, which is within the tire molding art, teaches that a sipe blade (“sipe blade” (26)) used for tire molding is attached to a base mold (“vulcanizing mold” (25)) in which a gap in the sipe blade (“distal end path” (47)) is in communication with a vent in the tire mold (“discharge path” (40), [[0030]) for the predictable result of venting gas during tire vulcanization while allowing for easy clog elimination ([0030]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ishihara ‘925 teaches all limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Additionally, modified Ishihara ‘925 teaches that the second blade is provided with the accommodation groove (Fig 6, 7), which is communicated with the vent hole and extends along the contact portion where the first blade and the second blade come in contact or along the fitting portion (Fig 6, 7).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ishihara ‘925 teaches all limitations of claim 9 as set forth above. Additionally, modified Ishihara ‘925 teaches that the second blade is provided with the accommodation groove (Fig 6, 7), which is communicated with the vent hole and extends along the contact portion where the first blade and the second blade come in contact or along the fitting portion (Fig 6, 7).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ishihara ‘925 teaches a tire mold (“tire mold” (3)) comprises the sipe blade with the limitations as set forth above in claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, modified Ishihara ‘925 teaches a tire mold (“tire mold” (3)) comprises the sipe blade with the limitations as set forth above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, modified Ishihara ‘925 teaches a tire mold (“tire mold” (3)) comprises the sipe blade with the limitations as set forth above in claim 10.
Regarding claim 17, modified Ishihara ‘925 teaches a tire mold (“tire mold” (3)) comprises the sipe blade with the limitations as set forth above in claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6 in view of Hennessey 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 6 October 2025 on p.2 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In applicant’s remarks on p.2, applicant argues that Ishihara ’925 does not disclose the vent passage of claim 6. Examiner disagrees, noting that given the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 6 where both “a vent passage” and “an accommodation groove” are not further defined in said claim nor explicitly associated with other limitations in the claim, for example “a fitting portion which accommodates the peripheral edge portion of the first blade and with which both the first molding surface and the second molding surface come in contact” which is given as an alternative to “a contact portion which extends along an outer periphery of the first blade implanted in the base mold and with which the first molding surface comes in contact along a peripheral edge portion of the first blade”, Ishihara ‘925’s “vent holes” (5) as set forth in the rejection above is considered to disclose the claimed limitation.
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
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744