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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
In the Remarks filed 12/02/2025, applicant states that claims 18 and 19 have been newly added. However, these claims are not reflected in the amended listing of claims filed 12/02/2025, and these claims are not represented in the total number of claims in the fee worksheet filed 12/02/2025. Thus, claims 18 and 19 are not considered as being added. However, examiner notes that the subject matter in claims 18 and 19 as represented in the Remarks filed 04/01/2025 is still taught by the prior art of record (see Response to Arguments section the Final Office Action mailed 09/04/2025).
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 and 4-17 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 “or the depth of each of the plurality of concave portions is constant toward the center thereof from the edges thereof” in lines 7-8. However, claim 1 has been amended to require that each of the concave portions has a pyramid shape with four triangular side surfaces that converge toward a bottom point of each concave portion from the edges of the concave portions. Thus, since the claimed pyramid shape necessarily requires a change in depth of the concave portions, it is unclear how the limitation in lines 7-8 can still describe the claimed concave portions. Therefore, for examination purposes, the limitations “wherein a depth of each of the plurality of concave portions increases toward a center thereof from edges thereof or the depth of each of the plurality of concave portions is constant toward the center thereof from the edges thereof” in lines 6-8 will be read as “wherein a depth of each of the plurality of concave portions increases toward a center thereof from edges thereof
Claims 4-9 are also rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “or the depth is constant toward the center from the edges thereof” in lines 6-7. However, claim 10 has been amended to require that each of the first concave portions has a pyramid shape with six triangular side surfaces that converge toward a bottom point of each concave portion from the edges of the concave portions. Thus, since the claimed pyramid shape necessarily requires a change in depth of the first concave portions, it is unclear how the limitation in lines 6-7 can still describe the claimed concave portions. Therefore, for examination purposes, the limitations “wherein a depth of each of the plurality of first concave portions increases toward a center thereof from edges thereof or the depth is constant toward the center from the edges thereof” in lines 5-7 will be read as “wherein a depth of each of the plurality of first concave portions increases toward a center thereof from edges thereof
Claims 11-17 are also rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required in order to overcome the indefiniteness rejections.
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.
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 1, 4-7, 10-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukawa (US 2014/0144565) (of record) in view of Takemori (US 2020/0324580) (of record) and Sato et al. (US 2008/0283169) (Sato).
Regarding claim 1, Yukawa discloses a tire (title) comprising sidewalls (8) extending from both sides of a tread (4), at least one of the sidewalls (8) having a plurality of concave portions (62) arranged in a circumferential direction of the tire (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0045]; [0064]), wherein each of the plurality of concave portions (62) is defined inward from an outer surface of the at least one of the sidewalls (8) in such a way as to have a depth increasing toward a center from edges thereof (see Fig. 7; [0091]-[0092]). Yukawa fails to disclose, however, that the at least one of the sidewalls (8) has grooves formed among adjacent concave portions (62) of the plurality of concave portions (62) and each groove is formed inward from the outer surface of the at least one of the sidewalls (8), wherein the grooves extend along the edges of each of the plurality of concave portions (62) to surround each of the plurality of concave portions (62).
Takemori teaches a similar tire (title) comprising sidewalls (4) extending from both sides of a tread (2) and having a plurality of concave portions (61, 62, 63) arranged in a circumferential direction of the tire (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0024]; [0033]), wherein each concave portion (61, 62, 63) is formed inward from an outer surface of the sidewall (4) in such a way as to have a depth increasing toward a center from edges thereof (see Modified Figure 4 below). Takemori further teaches that the sidewall (4) has grooves (81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88) among adjacent concave portions (61, 62, 63) of the plurality of concave portions (61, 62, 63) and each groove (81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88) is formed inward from the outer surface of the sidewall (4) (61, 62, 63) (see Modified Figure 4 below; [0042]-[0045]). Takemori further teaches that the grooves (Takemori: 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88) extend along the edges of the concave portions (Takemori: 61, 62, 63) to surround the concave portions (Takemori: 61, 62, 63) (Takemori: see Fig. 2; [0042]-[0044]). Takemori further teaches that configuring the sidewall (4) with these grooves (81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88) helps to prevent cracks from growing on the sidewall (4) ([0050]; [0012]-[0014]).
PNG
media_image1.png
303
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4, Takemori
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 sidewall disclosed by Yukawa to have the claimed grooves, as taught by Takemori, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent cracks from growing in the sidewall.
Modified Yukawa still fails to disclose, however, that each of the concave portions (Yukawa: 62) has a pyramid shape defined by four triangular planar side surfaces converging toward a bottom point of each concave portion (Yukawa: 62), the bottom point being the center of each of the plurality of concave portions (Yukawa: 62), the four triangular planar side surfaces meeting with the outer surface to define the edges of each of the plurality of concave portions (Yukawa: 62).
However, it is known in the art to configure concave portions on sidewalls in this way. For instance, Sato teaches a similar tire (title) comprising sidewalls (3) extending from both sides of a tread (2) (see Fig. 13; [0111]), at least one of the sidewalls (3) having a plurality of concave portions (210) arranged in a circumferential direction of the tire (see Fig. 13-15; [0112]-[0113]). Sato further discloses that each of the plurality of concave portions (210) has a pyramid shape defined by four triangular planar side surfaces converging toward a bottom point of each concave portion (210), the bottom point being the center of each of the plurality of concave portions (210), the four triangular planar side surfaces meeting with an outer surface (203a) to define the edges of each of the plurality of concave portions (210) (see Figs. 13-15; [0114]). Sato further teaches that configuring the concave portions (210) in this way can improve the visible appearance of the sidewall (3) (see Table 3; [0147]; [0116]-[0123]).
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 concave portions disclosed by Modified Yukawa to have the claimed pyramid shape, as taught by Sato, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the visible appearance of the tire.
Regarding claim 4, modified Yukawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Takemori further teaches that each groove (Takemori: 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88) becomes reduced in width from the outer surface of the sidewall (Takemori: 4) toward an inside thereof (see Modified Figure 4 above). Therefore, since modified Yukawa includes the teachings from Takemori regarding the grooves (Takemori: 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Yukawa to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yukawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Takemori can be further interpreted such that each groove (Takemori: 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88) extends in a constant width (Takemori: w2) from the outer surface of the sidewall (Takemori: 4) toward an inside thereof (see Modified Figure 4 below). Therefore, since modified Yukawa includes the teachings from Takemori regarding the grooves (Takemori: 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Yukawa to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 5.
PNG
media_image2.png
303
801
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4, Takemori
Regarding claim 6, modified Yukawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Yukawa further discloses that the plurality of concave portions (Yukawa: 62) are arranged in a plurality of columns (described as a first row, second row, third row, fourth row, fifth row, and sixth row) spaced apart from one another in a radial direction of the tire (Yukawa: see Fig. 3; [0069]; see also Fig. 1), and the concave portions (Yukawa: 62a, 62b, 62c. 62d, 62e, 62f) located on any one of the plurality of columns are arranged misaligned with the concave portions (Yukawa: 62a, 62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f) located on another column of the plurality of columns (Yukawa: see Fig. 3; [0069]; see also Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yukawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Yukawa further discloses that each concave portion (Yukawa: 62) has a width (Yukawa: L1) in the tire circumferential direction of the tire longer than a width (Yukawa: L2) in the radial direction of the tire (Yukawa: see Fig. 3; [0069]).
Regarding claim 10, Yukawa discloses a tire (title) comprising sidewalls (8) extending from both sides of a tread (4), at least one of the sidewalls (8) having a plurality of first concave portions (62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f) arranged in a radial direction of the tire (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0045]; [0069]), each of the plurality of first concave portions (62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f) being defined inward from an outer surface of the at least of one the sidewalls (8) in such a way as to have a depth increasing toward a center from edges thereof (see Fig. 7; [0091]-[0092]). Yukawa further discloses a plurality of second concave portions (62a) arranged on the outsides of the plurality of the first concave portions (62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f) in the radial direction of the tire (see Figs. 1 and 3; [0069]), each of the plurality of second concave portions (62a) being defined inward from the outer surface of the at least one of the sidewalls (8) (see Figs. 2 and 4; [0075]). Yukawa fails to disclose, however, that the at least one of the sidewalls (8) has grooves formed among adjacent first concave portions (62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f) of the plurality of first concave portions (62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f) and adjacent second concave portions (62a) of the plurality of second concave portions (62a), and each groove is formed inward from the outer surface of the at least one of the sidewalls (8), wherein the grooves extend along the edges of each of the plurality of first concave portions (62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f) to surround each of the plurality of first concave portions (62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f).
Takemori teaches a similar tire (title) comprising sidewalls (4) extending from both sides of a tread (2) and having a plurality of concave portions (61, 62, 63) arranged in a circumferential direction of the tire (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0024]; [0033]), wherein each concave portion (61, 62, 63) is formed inward from an outer surface of the sidewall (4) in such a way as to have a depth increasing toward a center from edges thereof (see Modified Figure 4 above). Takemori further teaches that the sidewall (4) has grooves (81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88) among adjacent concave portions (61, 62, 63) of the plurality of concave portions (61, 62, 63) and each groove (81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88) is formed inward from the outer surface of the sidewall (4) (61, 62, 63) (see Modified Figure 4 above; [0042]-[0045]). Takemori further teaches that the grooves (Takemori: 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88) extend along the edges of the concave portions (Takemori: 61, 62, 63) to surround the concave portions (Takemori: 61, 62, 63) (Takemori: see Fig. 2; [0042]-[0044]). Takemori further teaches that configuring the sidewall (4) with these grooves (81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88) helps to prevent cracks from growing on the sidewall (4) ([0050]; [0012]-[0014]).
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 sidewall disclosed by Yukawa to have the claimed grooves, as taught by Takemori, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent cracks from growing in the sidewall.
Modified Yukawa still fails to disclose, however, that each of the plurality of first concave portions (Yukawa: 62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f) has a pyramid shape defined by six triangular planar side surfaces converging toward a bottom point of each concave portion (Yukawa: 62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f), the bottom point being the center of each of the plurality of first concave portions (Yukawa: 62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f), the six triangular planar side surfaces meeting with the outer surface to define the edges of each of the plurality of first concave portions (Yukawa: 62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f).
However, it is known in the art to configure concave portions on sidewalls in this way. For instance, Sato teaches a similar tire (title) comprising sidewalls (3) extending from both sides of a tread (2) (see Fig. 13; [0111]), at least one of the sidewalls (3) having a plurality of concave portions (210) arranged in a circumferential direction of the tire (see Fig. 13-15; [0112]-[0113]). Sato further discloses that each of the plurality of concave portions (210) has a pyramid shape defined by four triangular planar side surfaces converging toward a bottom point of each concave portion (210), the bottom point being the center of each of the plurality of concave portions (210), the four triangular planar side surfaces meeting with an outer surface (203a) to define the edges of each of the plurality of concave portions (210) (see Figs. 13-15; [0114]). While the concave portions (210) in the embodiment shown in Figures 13-15 have a rectangular pyramid shape, Sato is also clear that the concave portions (210) can be formed in the shape of a hexagon ([0134]), which would naturally include six triangular planar side surfaces in order to form the disclosed pyramid shape. Sato further teaches that configuring the concave portions (210) in this way can improve the visible appearance of the sidewall (3) (see Table 3; [0147]; [0116]-[0123]).
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 concave portions disclosed by Modified Yukawa to have the claimed pyramid shape, as taught by Sato, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the visible appearance of the tire.
Regarding claim 11, modified Yukawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Modified Yukawa further discloses that the plurality of first concave portions (Yukawa: 62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f) are arranged in a plurality of rows spaced apart from one another in a circumferential direction of the tire (see Modified Figure 3 below), and the second concave portions (Yukawa: 62a) are located on some of the plurality of rows (see Modified Figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
605
694
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3, Yukawa
Regarding claim 14, modified Yukawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Modified Yukawa further discloses that each first concave portion (Yukawa: 62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f) and each second concave portion (Yukawa: 62a) have widths (Yukawa: L1) in the circumferential direction of the tire longer than widths (Yukawa: L2) in the radial direction of the tire (Yukawa: see Fig. 3; [0069]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yukawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Modified Yukawa further discloses an embodiment in which the width (Yukawa: L1) of each second concave portion (Yukawa: 62a) in the circumferential direction of the tire becomes reduced toward the inner radial direction of the tire from the outer radial direction of the tire (Yukawa: see Fig. 9; [0095]-[0096]).
Claims 8-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukawa (US 2014/0144565) (of record) in view of Takemori (US 2020/0324580) (of record) and Sato et al. (US 2008/0283169) (Sato) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Kaneko (US 2015/0352907) (of record).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, modified Yukawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 10, respectively. Modified Yukawa fails to disclose, however, the claimed serration part.
Kaneko teaches a similar tire (title) comprising sidewalls (10S) extending from both sides of a tread (10T) and having a plurality of concave portions (50) arranged in a circumferential direction of the tire (see Figs. 1-3; [0031]; [0039]), wherein each concave portion (50) is formed inward from an outer surface of the sidewall (10S) in such a way as to have a depth increasing toward a center from edges thereof (see Figs. 3 and 4; [0039]). Kaneko further teaches that the sidewall (10S) comprises a serration part (52, 54) located between a formation area where the concave portions (50) are arranged and the tread (10T) on the outer surface thereof (see Modified Figure 3 below; [0039]-[0040]). Kaneko further teaches that providing the sidewall (10S) with this serration part (52, 54) enables an effective reduction of appearance defects on the sidewall (10S) ([0046]).
PNG
media_image4.png
497
782
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3, Kaneko
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 sidewall disclosed by Yukawa to have the claimed serrations parts, as taught by Kaneko, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would effectively reduce appearance defects on the sidewall.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, modified Yukawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 10, respectively. Modified Yukawa fails to disclose, however, the claimed display area.
Kaneko teaches a similar tire (title) comprising sidewalls (10S) extending from both sides of a tread (10T) and having a plurality of concave portions (50) arranged in a circumferential direction of the tire (see Figs. 1-3; [0031]; [0039]), wherein each concave portion (50) is formed inward from an outer surface of the sidewall (10S) in such a way as to have a depth increasing toward a center from edges thereof (see Figs. 3 and 4; [0039]). Kaneko further teaches that the sidewall (10S) comprises a display area (32) located on the outer surface thereof in such a way as to be spaced apart from and surrounded by the concave portions (50) (see Fig. 2; [0038]). Kaneko further teaches that configuring the sidewall (10S) to have this display area (32) allows information about the tire to be easily displayed ([0038]).
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 sidewall disclosed by Yukawa to have the claimed display areas, as taught by Kaneko, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would allow for information about the tire to be easily displayed.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukawa (US 2014/0144565) (of record) in view of Takemori (US 2020/0324580) (of record) and Sato et al. (US 2008/0283169) (Sato) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kojima et al. (US 2011/0036475) (Kojima) (of record).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified Yukawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 11. Modified Yukawa fails to disclose, however, that the plurality of first concave portions (Yukawa: 62b, 62c, 62d, 62e, 62f) located on any one row of the plurality of rows have different sizes from one another and become gradually reduced in size toward an inner radial direction of the tire from an outer radial direction of the tire.
Kojima teaches a tire (title) comprising sidewalls (2) extending from both sides of a tread (1) and having a plurality of first concave portions (11) arranged in a radial direction of the tire (see Figs. 1 and 4; [0021]; [0029]), each first concave portion (11) being formed inward from an outer surface of the sidewall (2) in such a way as to have a depth increasing toward a center from edges thereof (see Fig. 1; [0029]). Kojima further teaches a plurality of second concave portions (11) located on outsides of the first concave portions (11) in the radial direction of the tire (see Modified Figure 4 below), each second concave portion (11) being formed inward from the outer surface of the sidewall (2) (see Fig. 1; [0029]). Kojima further teaches that the plurality of first concave portions (11) are arranged in a plurality of rows spaced apart from one another in a circumferential direction of the tire, and the second concave portions (11) are located on some of the plurality of rows (see Modified Figure 4 below). Kojima further teaches an embodiment in which the plurality of first concave portions (11) located on any one row of the plurality of rows have different sizes from one another and become gradually reduced in size toward an inner radial direction of the tire from an outer radial direction of the tire (see Fig. 5; [0038]). Kojima further teaches that configuring the first concave portions (11) in this way is very advantageous for reduction in air resistance ([0038]).
PNG
media_image5.png
528
856
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4, Kojima
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 first concave portions disclosed by Yukawa such that they gradually reduce in size toward an inner radial direction of the tire, as taught by Kojima, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would reduce air resistance in the tire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claims 1 and 10 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.
In response to applicant’s arguments against the Takemori reference, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant specifically argues that examiner’s interpretation of Takemori’s decorative sections (61, 62, 63) as corresponding to concave portions is not reasonable and overtly expands the meaning of the term “concave” because the decorative sections (61, 62, 63) also include a plurality of ridges (61e, 62e, 63e). However, examiner maintains that this interpretation of Takemori is consistent with the definition of concave as used in the instant application and is, thus, reasonable. Indeed, the term “concave” can have several definitions. A narrower definition of the word “concave” is “curved like the inner surface of a sphere” (see NPL “Concave - definition, examples, related words and more at wordnik”). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately determined that the instant application does not use this narrower definition because the concave portions (141) of the instant application are not curved like the inner surface of a sphere (see Fig. 4 of the instant application) and can even have constant depths toward the center thereof from the edges thereof (see claims 1 and 10 and [57] of the instant application). Thus, the broader meaning of “concave” as referring to “a cavity; a recess” (see NPL “Concave - definition, examples, related words and more at wordnik”) is more appropriate in terms of how the instant application uses the term. With this in mind, it is clear that the sections (61, 62, 63) disclosed by Takemori would reasonably be considered as concave portions by one of ordinary skill in the art because each of the sections (61, 62, 63) is defined by four sides (61a-61d, 62a-62d, 63a-63d) that project from a surface and surround the sections (61, 62, 63) ([0034]-[0038]; see Fig. 2; see also Modified Figure 4 below). Thus, each of the sections (61, 62, 63) define a concave portion between and with respect to the corresponding four sides (61a-61d, 62a-62d, 63a-63d). While each of the sections (61, 62, 63) also include ridges (61e, 62e, 63e), there is nothing in the instant claims nor in the meaning of the word “concave” that excludes ridges or projections from being formed within each of the concave portions. Thus, applicant’s arguments against the Takemori reference are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image6.png
311
584
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4, Takemori
As such, claims 1 and 4-17 stand rejected.
Conclusion
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