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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Group II (a tire production method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/28/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “external force application mechanism” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s specification discloses “the external force application mechanism includes a for-rotation spring member for application of spring force as external force to the segment” (Figs. 1, 3-6: 30) ([0007], [0033]-[0034]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5 and 7-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the segment” in lines 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 is unclear as a plurality of segments was previously disclosed but now a singular segment is being referenced. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes a respective segment from the plurality of segments.
Claims 2-5 and 7-11 are indefinite by dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the phrases “the first segment” in line 4, “the first rotatable shaft” in line 4, “the second segment” in lines 4-5, and “the second rotatable shaft” in line 5 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, the phrases “the first segment” in line 4, “the first rotatable shaft” in line 4, “the second segment” in lines 4-5, and “the second rotatable shaft” in line 5 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, the phrases “the first segment” in line 4, “the first rotatable shaft” in line 4, “the second segment” in lines 4-5, and “the second rotatable shaft” in line 5 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 11, the phrases “the first segment” in line 4, “the first rotatable shaft” in line 4, “the second segment” in lines 4-5, and “the second rotatable shaft” in line 5 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bachochin et al. (US 20080152742) (of record).
Regarding claims 1-2, Bachochin discloses a mold for forming a tire for vulcanization molding of an unvulcanized raw tire into a tire (Figs. 1-2), the mold comprising an annular tread molding part (Figs. 1-2: 19) which is divided into a plurality of segments (Figs. 1-2: 16) arranged in a circumferential direction ([0003], [0017]), wherein the mold comprises a rotatable shaft (Figs. 1-2: 44) which is provided on a side (Figs. 1-2: 35) of one end of the segment (Figs. 1-2: 16) in a direction of an axis of the tread molding part (Figs. 1-2: 19) and which is perpendicular to a direction of movement of the segment and also to the axis of the tread molding part ([0021]-[0022]); and a base member (Figs. 1-2: 14) supporting the segment (Figs. 1-2: 16) to be rotatable around the rotatable shaft (Figs. 1-2: 44) ([0020]-[0022]); and an external force application mechanism (Figs. 1-2: 48, 50) which, when the tread molding part is opened (Fig. 2), applies external force to the segment (Figs. 1-2: 16) to rotate the segment toward a direction in which a side (Figs. 1-2: 32) of the other end of the segment in the direction of the axis is moved around the rotatable shaft (Figs. 1-2: 44) toward a radially outer side (Fig. 2) ([0019], [0024]-[0025]), wherein the external force application mechanism (Figs. 1-2: 48, 50) includes a for-rotation spring member (Figs. 1-2: 48) for application of spring force as external force to the segment (Figs. 1-2: 16) ([0019], [0024]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 3, Bachochin further discloses an outer ring (Figs. 1-2: 34) which is disposed on a radially outer side of the segment (Figs. 1-2: 16) and movable between a retention position at which the segment is retained at a predetermined position (Fig. 1) and a release position which allows for rotation of the segment (Figs. 1-2: 16) around the rotatable shaft (Figs. 1-2: 44) toward the radially outer side (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nara et al. (US 6066283) (of record).
Regarding claims 1-2, Nara discloses a mold (Fig. 1: 11) for forming a tire for vulcanization molding of an unvulcanized raw tire (Fig. 1: T) into a tire, the mold comprising an annular tread molding part (Figs. 1-3: 20) which is divided into a plurality of segments (Figs. 1-3: 22) arranged in a circumferential direction (Col. 4 lines 40-43), wherein the mold comprises a rotatable shaft (Figs. 1-3: 36) which is provided on a side of one end of the segment (Figs. 1-3: 22) in a direction of an axis of the tread molding part (Figs. 1-3: 20) and which is perpendicular to a direction of movement of the segment and also to the axis of the tread molding part (Figs. 1-3: 20) (Col. 5 lines 12-27); and a base member (Figs. 1-3: 46) supporting the segment (Figs. 1-3: 22) to be rotatable around the rotatable shaft (Figs. 1-3: 36) (Col. 6 lines 2-15); and an external force application mechanism (Figs. 1-3: 42, 43) which, when the tread molding part is opened (Fig. 3), applies external force to the segment (Figs. 1-3: 22) to rotate the segment toward a direction in which a side of the other end of the segment in the direction of the axis is moved around the rotatable shaft (Figs. 1-3: 36) toward a radially outer side, wherein the external force application mechanism (Figs. 1-3: 42, 43) includes a for-rotation spring member (Figs. 1-3: 43) for application of spring force as external force to the segment (Figs. 1-3: 22) (Col. 5 lines 51-67; Col. 6 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Nara further discloses an outer ring (Fig. 1: 25) which is disposed on a radially outer side of the segment (Fig. 1: 22) and movable between a retention position at which the segment is retained at a predetermined position (Fig. 1) and a release position which allows for rotation of the segment around the rotatable shaft toward the radially outer side (Fig. 3) (Col. 4 lines 46-66).
Regarding claims 4 and 7-8, Nara further discloses a guide rail (Figs. 1-3: 45) supporting the base member (Figs. 1-3: 46) to be movable in a radial direction of the tread molding part (Figs. 1-3: 20); and a for-sliding spring member (Figs. 1-3: 47) biasing the base member (Figs. 1-3: 46) toward a radially outer side of the tread molding part (Figs. 1-3: 20), wherein the segment (Figs. 1-3: 22) is moved toward the radially outer side with the segment being rotated around the rotatable shaft (Figs 1-3: 36) (Col. 6 lines 2-15).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachochin et al. (US 20080152742) (of record) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (JP 2000334740, see machine translation).
Regarding claims 5 and 9-10, Bachochin does not expressly recite when the tread molding part is opened after vulcanization molding of the tire, the first segment is rotated around the first rotatable shaft, and subsequently, the second segment is rotated around the second rotatable shaft.
Yamada discloses a mold for forming a tire for vulcanization molding of an unvulcanized raw tire into a tire, the mold comprising an annular tread molding part which is divided into a plurality of segments (Figs. 6-7: 11, 12) arranged in a circumferential direction, wherein the segments are divided into two different groups that move independently and sequentially from each other (Figs. 6-7) ([0007]-[0008], [0013]-[0014], [0022]-[0025]). In this manner, it is possible provide a tire mold that can prevent flashing by eliminating the pinching of the raw tire between segments, extend the life of the tire mold, and improve tire quality, cost reduction, and productivity ([0006], [0022], [0024]). Although Yamada does not disclose radially moving the segments by rotating around a shaft, Yamada does disclose advantages for independently and sequentially radially moving segments one after the other, which one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize would also be advantageous for and applicable to the tire mold of Bachochin. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Bachochin in order to provide that, when the tread molding part is opened after vulcanization molding of the tire, a first segment is rotated around a first rotatable shaft followed by a second segment rotated around a second rotatable shaft so as to prevent flashing by eliminating the pinching of the raw tire between segments, extend the life of the tire mold, and improve tire quality, cost reduction, and productivity, as taught by Yamada.
Claim(s) 5 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nara et al. (US 6066283) (of record) as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (JP 2000334740, see machine translation).
Regarding claims 5 and 9-11, Nara does not expressly recite when the tread molding part is opened after vulcanization molding of the tire, the first segment is rotated around the first rotatable shaft, and subsequently, the second segment is rotated around the second rotatable shaft.
Yamada discloses a mold for forming a tire for vulcanization molding of an unvulcanized raw tire into a tire, the mold comprising an annular tread molding part which is divided into a plurality of segments (Figs. 6-7: 11, 12) arranged in a circumferential direction, wherein the segments are divided into two different groups that move independently and sequentially from each other (Figs. 6-7) ([0007]-[0008], [0013]-[0014], [0022]-[0025]). In this manner, it is possible provide a tire mold that can prevent flashing by eliminating the pinching of the raw tire between segments, extend the life of the tire mold, and improve tire quality, cost reduction, and productivity ([0006], [0022], [0024]). Although Yamada does not disclose radially moving the segments by rotating around a shaft, Yamada does disclose advantages for independently and sequentially radially moving segments one after the other, which one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize would also be advantageous for and applicable to the tire mold of Nara. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Nara in order to provide that, when the tread molding part is opened after vulcanization molding of the tire, a first segment is rotated around a first rotatable shaft followed by a second segment rotated around a second rotatable shaft so as to prevent flashing by eliminating the pinching of the raw tire between segments, extend the life of the tire mold, and improve tire quality, cost reduction, and productivity, as taught by Yamada.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Allitt (US 3553789) discloses mold for forming a tire for vulcanization molding of an unvulcanized raw tire into a tire (Fig. 1), the mold comprising an annular tread molding part which is divided into a plurality of segments (Fig. 1: 4) arranged in a circumferential direction, wherein the mold comprises a rotatable shaft (Fig. 1: 22) which is provided on a side of one end of the segment in a direction of an axis of the tread molding part and which is perpendicular to a direction of movement of the segment and also to the axis of the tread molding part; and a base member (Fig. 1: 5a) supporting the segment to be rotatable around the rotatable shaft (Fig. 1: 22); and an external force application mechanism (Fig. 1: 6) which, when the tread molding part is opened, applies external force to the segment (Fig. 1: 4) to rotate the segment toward a direction in which a side of the other end of the segment in the direction of the axis is moved around the rotatable shaft (Fig. 1: 22) toward a radially outer side, wherein the external force application mechanism includes a for-rotation spring member (Fig. 1: 6) for application of spring force as external force to the segment.
Zaika (SU 1362638) discloses mold for forming a tire for vulcanization molding of an unvulcanized raw tire into a tire (Fig. 1), the mold comprising an annular tread molding part which is divided into a plurality of segments (Fig. 1: 3) arranged in a circumferential direction, wherein the mold comprises a rotatable shaft (Fig. 1: 7) which is provided on a side of one end of the segment in a direction of an axis of the tread molding part and which is perpendicular to a direction of movement of the segment and also to the axis of the tread molding part; and a base member (Fig. 1: 8) supporting the segment (Fig. 1: 3) to be rotatable around the rotatable shaft (Fig. 1: 7); and an external force application mechanism (Fig. 1: 10) which, when the tread molding part is opened, applies external force to the segment (Fig. 1: 3) to rotate the segment toward a direction in which a side of the other end of the segment in the direction of the axis is moved around the rotatable shaft (Fig. 1: 7) toward a radially outer side, wherein the external force application mechanism includes a for-rotation spring member (Fig. 1: 10) for application of spring force as external force to the segment.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE (née AYALP) 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 (née WHATLEY) 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