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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s claims and arguments filed 10/08/2025. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are currently pending for examination on the merits.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words and contains more than 15 lines of text. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the shoulder-side block rows” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Thus, it is unclear what this limitation is referring to. It is assumed that this limitation is referring to the singular “shoulder-side block row” introduced in line 7. Thus, for examination purposes, “the shoulder-side block rows” in line 12 will be read as “the shoulder-side block row.”
Claims 3-11 and 13-20 are also rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the pneumatic vehicle tire” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Thus, it is unclear what this limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, “the pneumatic vehicle tire” in line 7 will be read as “the vehicle tire.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the pneumatic vehicle tire” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Thus, it is unclear what this limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, “the pneumatic vehicle tire” in line 2 will be read as “the vehicle tire.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the lower recess” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Thus, it is unclear what this limitation is referring to. It is assumed that this limitation is referring to each of the “second recesses” introduced in claim 1. Thus, for examination purposes, “the lower recess has” in line 1 will be read as “each of the second recesses have.”
Appropriate correction is required in order to overcome the indefiniteness rejections. Suggested corrections are bolded and underlined for emphasis only.
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 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, 7-10, 13-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Behr (DE 102006047324 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Behr discloses a vehicle tire (title) comprising: a carcass having at least one ply ([0019]); a multi-ply belt ([0019]); a profiled tread (3) with grooves (6, 7, 8) formed to a profile depth (see Fig. 1; [0022]), wherein the profiled tread (3) is provided at at least one shoulder of the tire to form a shoulder-side block row (4) (see Fig. 1; [0021]); a plurality of blocks (5) of the shoulder-side block row (4) each have a peripheral edge laterally delimiting a ground contact patch (TA) of the tire and the peripheral edge radially delimiting a side flank surface of the at least one shoulder (see Modified Figure 2 below); a plurality of transverse grooves (7) of the profiled tread (3) separate the plurality of blocks (5) of the shoulder-side block row (4) from one another (see Fig. 1; [0022]), each of the plurality of transverse grooves (7) open outwardly at the side flank surface, and bottoms of the respective transverse grooves (7) have end portions proximal the side flank surface, the respective end portions of the transverse grooves (7) extending in a radial direction and being recessed relative to the side flank surface to form respective first recesses of the at least one shoulder that are circumferentially spaced apart from each other (see Modified Figure 4 below; see also Figs. 1 and 3); the at least one shoulder having a plurality of second recesses circumferentially spaced apart from each other, the plurality of second recesses being arranged radially inwardly and spaced apart from the first recesses by a separation distance b (see Modified Figure 4; see also Figs. 1 and 3), each of the first recesses and second recesses have respective cooling ribs (9) (see Figs. 1, 2, and 5; [0023]). Behr further discloses that the cooling ribs (9) can extend in a curved manner ([0033]), which necessarily includes directions oblique to the radial direction. Examiner notes that the limitation “configured to facilitate heat dissipation while the tire is rolling” is merely an indented use limitation that does not require and structure not already present in the tire of Behr. Behr further discloses that a total surface area provided by the cooling ribs (9) of the first recess is less than a total surface area provided by the cooling ribs (9) of the second recess (see Modified Figure 4 below). Thus, Behr reads on all of the limitations in claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
383
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Behr
PNG
media_image2.png
610
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4, Behr
Regarding claim 7, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Examiner notes that the first recesses and the second recesses discloses by Behr can be interpreted such that they are designed quadrilaterally (see Modified Figure 4 below). Thus, Behr reads on the limitations in claim 7.
PNG
media_image3.png
610
703
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4, Behr
Regarding claim 8, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Behr further discloses that the cooling ribs (9) of each of the first and second recesses have a width (b) between 1 mm and 1.5 mm at their base ([0027]; see Fig. 5), reading on the claimed range of 1.0 mm to 5.0 mm.
Regarding claim 9, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Behr further discloses that the cooling ribs (9) of each of the first and second recesses have a mutual center-to-center spacing (a) of 2 mm ([0028]; see Fig. 5), reading on the claimed range of 1.2 mm to 7.0 mm.
Regarding claim 10, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Behr further discloses that the cooling ribs (9) of each of the first and second recesses have a height (h) of 0.5 mm to 2 mm ([0026]), reading on the claimed range of 0.5 mm to 5.0 mm.
Regarding claim 13, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Behr further discloses that the second recess has a quadrilateral shape (see Modified Figure 4 above).
Regarding claim 14, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Behr further discloses that the peripheral edges are rounded (see Modified Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 17, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Behr further discloses that the bottom (10) of each transverse groove (7) has an inward portion that extends in a transverse direction, and the bottom (10) of each transverse groove deviates from its transverse direction at its end portion to extend in the radial direction (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 18, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Behr further discloses that the total surface area provided by the cooling ribs (9) of the first recess is clearly less than half the total surface area provided by the cooling ribs (9) of the second recess (see Modified Figure 4 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behr (DE 102006047324 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 4, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Behr further discloses that side flank surfaces of the respective shoulder-profile blocks (5) are provided at regular intervals over a circumference of the vehicle tire (see Fig. 1; [0022]). Behr fails to explicitly disclose a relationship between a distance in the radial direction of the side flank surfaces and the profile depth as measured from the respective peripheral edge. However, based on Modified Figure 2 of Behr, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the side flank surfaces are at a distance of about 1.6 times the profile depth as measured from the respective peripheral edge (see Modified Figure 2 below), suggesting the claimed range of 1.25 times to 2.5 times. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings at least as a starting point in their design process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen a relationship between these values to be within the claimed range because the drawings reasonably suggest doing so.
PNG
media_image4.png
383
782
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Behr
Regarding claim 6, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Since Behr discloses that the second recesses are at end portions of different transverse grooves (6) (see Modified Figure 4 above; [0023]-[0025]), examiner can interpret the profile depth as extending to the maximum depth of the second recesses (see Modified Figure 2 above). With this interpretation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the first recesses and the second recesses have a radial extent of about 67% of the profile depth, suggesting the claimed range of 10% to 70%. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, ne of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings at least as a starting point in their design process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen a relationship between these values to be within the claimed range because the drawings reasonably suggest doing so.
PNG
media_image5.png
358
729
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Behr
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behr (DE 102006047324 with English Machine Translation) in view of Fischer (DE 102010017743 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 3, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Behr further discloses that the separation distance b between the first recesses and the second recesses equal to the width of the connection (20) that connects adjacent blocks (5) (see Fig. 1; see also Modified Figure 4 above; [0025]). However, Behr fails to explicitly disclose a value for the width of the connection (20).
Fischer teaches a similar vehicle tire (title) comprising a shoulder block row (1) wherein a plurality of blocks (4) are separated by transverse grooves (5, 6, 7, 8) (see Fig. 1; [0019]-[0020]). Specifically, Fischer teaches that a first recess delimited by the end portion of one of the transverse grooves (7) is separated from a second recess (12) by a distance (k) of 3 mm (see Fig. 1; [0028]), suggesting the claimed range of at least 2.0 mm. Fischer further teaches that configuring the tire in this way helps the tire obtain good traction and braking properties on dry roads with good handling properties, good aquaplaning behavior and improved grip on soft surfaces ([0004]; [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the separation distance b disclosed by Behr to be within the claimed range, as taught by Fischer, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help the tire obtain good traction and braking properties on dry roads with good handling properties, good aquaplaning behavior and improved grip on soft surfaces.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behr (DE 102006047324 with English Machine Translation) in view of Yamaguchi (US 2015/0251496).
Regarding claim 5, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Behr further discloses that the cooling ribs (9) of the first recesses do not project beyond the side flank surfaces (see Modified Figure 2 above). Behr fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the end portions extend in the radial direction greater than the profile depth by 10% to 30%.
Yamaguchi teaches a similar vehicle tire (title) comprising a profiled tread (15) with grooves (2) formed to a profile depth (Dsh) (see Fig. 2; [0058]). Yamaguchi further teaches that the tread rubber (15) comprises a plurality of transverse grooves (4) that open outwardly at a side flank surface, and bottoms of the respective transverse grooves (4) have end portions (41) proximal the side flank surface (see Fig. 6; [0075]). Yamaguchi further teaches that the end portions (41) extend in the radial direction to a depth (Drg) between 0.70 and 1.1 times the sum of the profile depth (Dsh) and the under-groove gauge (UDsh) ([0132]). Yamaguchi further teaches that configuring the transverse grooves (4) in this way allows the end portions (41) to be positioned appropriately when used as a mark to decide the tire rehabilitation period ([0132]). Specifically, Yamaguchi teaches an example in which the ratio (UDsh/Dsh) is equal to 0.30, and the ratio ((Drg/(Dsh+UDsh)) is equal to 0.90 (see Working Example 9 in Fig. 15). Thus, Yamaguchi necessarily teaches that the depth (Drg) of the end portions (41) is equal to 1.17 (0.90*1.30) times the profile depth (Dsh), or 17% greater than the profile depth (Dsh), suggesting the claimed range of 10% to 30% greater.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the radial extent of the end portions disclosed by Behr to meet the claimed relationship with the profile depth, as taught by Yamaguchi, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would allow the end portions to be positioned appropriately when used as a mark to decide the tire rehabilitation period.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behr (DE 102006047324 with English Machine Translation) in view of Takemoto (US 2016/0193884).
Regarding claim 11, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Behr further discloses that each of the first and second recesses are provided at spacings in the circumferential direction equal to the pitch length of the transverse grooves (7) (see Modified Figure 4 above). Behr fails to explicitly disclose, however, the exact spacings of the first and second recesses in the tire circumferential direction.
Takemoto teaches a similar vehicle tire (title) comprising a plurality of transverse grooves (5B) with a pitch length (L6) in the tire circumferential direction equal to 62.0 mm ([0129]), which is equal to 6.2 cm, suggesting the claimed range of 5 cm to 15 cm. Takemoto further teaches that these grooves (5B) help to improve the steering stability and drainage performance of the tire ([0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pitch length of the transverse grooves and, thus, the spacings of the first and second recesses disclosed by Behr to be within the claimed range, as taught by Takemoto, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so could help improve the steering stability and drainage performance of the tire.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behr (DE 102006047324 with English Machine Translation) in view of Tsuchiya (JP 2015182294 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 15, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 15. Behr further discloses that the tire is a passenger tire ([0019]). However, Behr fails to disclose a specific rim diameter for the tire.
However, conventional rim diameters for passenger tires are known in the art. For instance, Tsuchiya teaches a similar passenger tire (title; [0025]). Tsuchiya further teaches that passenger tires generally have a rim size of 12 inches or more and 24 inches or less ([0025]), overlapping the claimed range of at least 24 inches. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the passenger tire disclosed by Behr to have the claimed rim diameter, as taught by Tsuchiya, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would be an effective way of creating a passenger tire.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behr (DE 102006047324 with English Machine Translation) in view of Mukai (US 2010/0300594).
Regarding claim 16, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Behr fails to disclose, however, that the cooling ribs (9) of each of the first and second recesses have an isosceles trapezoid shape in cross section.
However, it is known in the art to configure ribs on a tire sidewall with trapezoidal cross sections. For instance, Mukai teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a plurality of ribs (10) on a sidewall portion (3) (see Figs. 1 and 3; [0038]-[0048]), wherein the ribs (10) have an isosceles trapezoid shape in cross section (see Fig. 4B). Mukai further teaches that configuring the ribs (10) in this way facilitates the removal of the mold after vulcanization ([0074]-[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ribs disclosed by modified Williams to have trapezoidal cross sectional shapes, as taught by Mukai, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would facilitate the removal of the mold after vulcanization.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behr (DE 102006047324 with English Machine Translation) in view of Yamaguchi (US 2015/0251496), Morito et al. (US 2010/0000641) (Morito) (of record), and Fischer (DE 102010017743 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 19, Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Behr further discloses that the bottom (10) of each transverse groove (7) has an inward portion that extends in a transverse direction parallel to the ground contact patch, and the bottom (10) of each transverse groove (7) deviates from its transverse direction by curving toward its end portion which extends radially and parallel to the side flank surface (see Fig. 1; see also Modified Figure 2 above), wherein for the at least one shoulder, the inward portions of the respective transverse grooves (7) do not contain cooling ribs (9) and only the end portions of the respective transverse grooves (7) that extend radially and are recessed relative to the side flank surface contain the cooling ribs (see Modified Figure 4 above; [0024]). Behr fails to fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the end portions extend in the radial direction greater than the profile depth by 10% to 30%.
Yamaguchi teaches a similar vehicle tire (title) comprising a profiled tread (15) with grooves (2) formed to a profile depth (Dsh) (see Fig. 2; [0058]). Yamaguchi further teaches that the tread rubber (15) comprises a plurality of transverse grooves (4) that open outwardly at a side flank surface, and bottoms of the respective transverse grooves (4) have end portions (41) proximal the side flank surface (see Fig. 6; [0075]). Yamaguchi further teaches that the end portions (41) extend in the radial direction to a depth (Drg) between 0.70 and 1.1 times the sum of the profile depth (Dsh) and the under-groove gauge (UDsh) ([0132]). Yamaguchi further teaches that configuring the transverse grooves (4) in this way allows the end portions (41) to be positioned appropriately when used as a mark to decide the tire rehabilitation period ([0132]). Specifically, Yamaguchi teaches an example in which the ratio (UDsh/Dsh) is equal to 0.30, and the ratio ((Drg/(Dsh+UDsh)) is equal to 0.90 (see Working Example 9 in Fig. 15). Thus, Yamaguchi necessarily teaches that the depth (Drg) of the end portions (41) is equal to 1.17 (0.90*1.30) times the profile depth (Dsh), or 17% greater than the profile depth (Dsh), suggesting the claimed range of 10% to 30% greater.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the radial extent of the end portions disclosed by Behr to meet the claimed relationship with the profile depth, as taught by Yamaguchi, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would allow the end portions to be positioned appropriately when used as a mark to decide the tire rehabilitation period.
Modified Behr still fails to disclose, however, that the respective cooling ribs (Behr: 9) of the first recesses and the second recesses extend obliquely to the radial direction by respective angles in the range of 10 degrees to 75 degrees.
Morito teaches a similar vehicle tire (title) comprising a plurality of transverse grooves (22) opening outwardly to a side flank surface (23b) (see Figs. 3 and 4; [0040]-[0042]). Morito further teaches that the side flank surface comprises a plurality of recesses (61) which contain a plurality of cooling ribs (7) (see Figs. 3 and 5; [0042]-[0046]). Morito further teaches that these cooling ribs (7) extend obliquely to the radial direction by angles (α) in the range of 0 degrees to 60 degrees ([0062]; see Fig. 3), overlapping the claimed range of 10 degrees to 75 degrees. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Morito further teaches that configuring the cooling ribs (7) in this way improves the turning performance on icy roads and reduces the manufacturing defects of the tire ([0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling ribs disclosed by modified Behr to have the claimed inclination angles, as taught by Morito, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the turning performance on icy roads and reduce the manufacturing defects of the tire.
Modified Behr further discloses that each of the second recesses is directly below one of the respective first recesses (see Modified Figure 4 above). Modified Behr further discloses that the separation distance b between the first recesses and the second recesses equal to the width of the connection (Behr: 20) that connects adjacent blocks (Behr: 5) (Behr: see Fig. 1; see also Modified Figure 4 above; [0025]). However, modified Behr fails to explicitly disclose a value for the width of the connection (Behr: 20).
Fischer teaches a similar vehicle tire (title) comprising a shoulder block row (1) wherein a plurality of blocks (4) are separated by transverse grooves (5, 6, 7, 8) (see Fig. 1; [0019]-[0020]). Specifically, Fischer teaches that a first recess delimited by the end portion of one of the transverse grooves (7) is separated from a second recess (12) by a distance (k) of 3 mm (see Fig. 1; [0028]), suggesting the claimed range of at least 2.0 mm. Fischer further teaches that configuring the tire in this way helps the tire obtain good traction and braking properties on dry roads with good handling properties, good aquaplaning behavior and improved grip on soft surfaces ([0004]; [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the separation distance b disclosed by modified Behr to be within the claimed range, as taught by Fischer, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help the tire obtain good traction and braking properties on dry roads with good handling properties, good aquaplaning behavior and improved grip on soft surfaces.
Regarding claim 20, modified Behr discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 19. Modified Behr further discloses that a total surface area provided by the cooling ribs (Behr: 9) of the first recess is less than half the total surface area provided by the cooling ribs (9) of the second recess (see Modified Figure 4 above). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Thus, modified Behr satisfies all of the limitations in claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office Action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Applicant alleges that the claims have been amended in accordance with examiner’s comments regarding the previous 112(b) rejections. However, the claims have not been amended. Thus, the 112(b) rejections still stand.
In response to applicant’s request that the objection to the abstract be held in abeyance pursuant to 37 CFR 1.111(b), examiner grants this request. The objection to the abstract is maintained and repeated in the rejection for clarity.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 against the 35 USC 102 rejection over Behr have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, the examiner maintains that Behr still reads on the claims as set forth in the rejection above. Specifically, applicant argues that Behr fails to disclose that each of the cooling ribs extends obliquely relative to the radial direction, as required by claim 1, since the cooling ribs extend in the circumferential direction. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Behr shows an embodiment in which the cooling ribs extend in the circumferential direction (see Figs. 1, 2, and 5; [0023]), Behr is also clear that the cooling ribs (9) can extend in a curved manner ([0033]), which would necessarily include directions oblique to the radial direction. Thus Behr still satisfies all of the limitations in claim 1 in the manner explained above.
Applicant further argues that examiner’s interpretation of Figure 4 of Behr in the rejection of claim 7 is not in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation standard because it stretches beyond what the specification and ordinary meaning will bear. Examiner disagrees. First, with respect to applicant’s citation of a Board decision, examiner notes that Board decisions are not precedential; thus, the facts of the cited Board decision do not necessarily relate to the instant case, and examiner is not bound by its fact-specific conclusions. Furthermore, examiner maintains that the interpretation of Figure 4 in the rejection of claim 7 is consistent with BRI. Indeed, examiner notes that the limitation in claim 7 requiring that the first and second recesses be designed quadrilaterally is a very broad limitation in that is does not exclude other recesses with different shapes from being connected with the claimed first and second recesses. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably recognized, similarly to examiner, that the recesses disclosed by Behr clearly include quadrilaterally shaped portions (see Modified Figure 4 above), which read on the claimed first and second recesses. The mere presence of other recesses with different shapes does not refute this fact. Thus, applicant’s arguments related to claim 7 are not persuasive.
As such, claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749