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 .
Response to Amendment
In the applicant’s reply of 20 February 2026, the claims were amended. Based on these amendments, the claim objections included in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections based on Sony and Miyamoto have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner agrees that this combination fails to meet the limitations of claim 1, as amended. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pan 2015 and Pan 2018. See below.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 6 of claim 16, “a tire tread” and “a tread mold” should be replaced with “the tire tread” and “the tread mold” for consistency with line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0367539 (“Pan 2015”) (cited in an IDS) in view of US 2018/0009182 (“Pan 2018”).
Regarding claim 1, Pan 2015 discloses a system (the tread removal system 30 and mold 20; see Figures 1-3, [0026], and [0029]) comprising:
a rail assembly (drive unit 34, which is configured to translate along track 36; see Figure 2 and [0033]);
a tread mold comprising a mold cavity having a length and a width smaller than the length (mold 20 with molding cavity 22; see Figures 1-3 and [0026]);
a rail positioned adjacent the tread mold (track 36, which is positioned along the mold to guide the removal of the tread from the molding cavity; see Figure 2 and [0033]), the rail assembly configured to translate along the rail (drive unit 34 is configured to translate along track 36; see [0033]); and
a tread extraction assembly coupled to the rail assembly (gripping member 32, which is operably connected to drive unit 34 via a connecting member; see Figures 1-3, [0029], and [0033]).
Pan 2015 discloses that gripping member 32 may comprise “any member for grasping, clamping, or connecting for the purpose of facilitating the transfer or application of a demolding force to the tread”, including “a mechanical clamping member” (see [0029]). However, Pan 2015 does not provide structural detail for the gripping member, and accordingly does not explicitly disclose a base frame and a first clamping assembly having a first clamp movable relative to the base frame.
Pan 2018 is directed to methods and systems for forming tire treads in a closed-loop system (see [0001]), including a tread strip demolding device 180 for removing a cured tread strip from a tread strip mold member 130 (see Figures 8 and 9A-B and [0050]-[0051]). The demolding device 180 includes a rotatable gripping member 182 having one or more projections 184 configured to initially grasp the tread strip arranged within the mold member, and a rotatable clamping member 186 having a clamping structure 188 that rotates to squeeze and secure the tread strip against the gripping member (see [0051] and Figure 9B). The gripping member 182 and clamping member 186 are mounted to a structural body of the demolding device 180 (see Figures 9A-9B, which show both members supported by the housing of device 180). During demolding, the gripping member 182 rotates to hook the tread strip with the projections 184 and wraps the tread strip partially around the gripping member, and subsequently the clamping member 186 rotates to clamp the tread strip against the gripping member (see [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the gripping member 32 of Pan 2015 with the demolding device 180 of Pan 2018, including the rotatable gripping member 182 with projections 184 and the rotatable clamping member 186 with clamping structure 188 mounted to the housing of device 180. Pan 2015 expressly contemplates the use of any known gripping or clamping member (see [0029]), and Pan 2018 teaches a specific clamping and gripping arrangement used for the same purpose of demolding cured tread strips from tread molds. The substitution of one known tread gripping/clamping device for another known tread gripping/clamping device to achieve the predictable result of securely gripping the tread during demolding would have been obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
In the modified system, the housing of Pan 2018’s demolding device 180 corresponds to the claimed “base frame”, and the rotatable clamping member 186 with clamping structure 188 corresponds to the claimed “first clamping assembly having a first clamp movable relative to the base frame”, since the clamping member 186 rotates relative to the housing to clamp the tread strip (see Figures 9A-9B and [0051] of Pan 2018). Additionally, the rotatable clamping member 186 and its clamping structure 188 are configured to clamp a portion of a tire tread lying in a tread mold (see Figure 9A of Pan 2018), as claimed.
Regarding the limitation that “the rail assembly is configured to traverse the length of the tread mold along the rail while the portion of the tire tread is clamped by the first clamping assembly to extract the tire tread from the tread mold”, Pan 2015 discloses that drive unit 34 translates along track 36 to pull the gripping member and the tread along the length of the mold during demolding (see Figures 1-3, [0028]-[0029], and [0033]). In the modified system, the tread would be clamped by the clamping arrangement of Pan 2018’s device 180 while the drive unit 34 traverses the length of the mold, extracting the tread from the mold.
Regarding claim 18, modified Pan 2015 discloses that the system is configured to invert the tire tread from a pattern-side downward orientation to a pattern-side upward orientation as the rail assembly traverses the length of the tread mold with the portion of the tire tread clamped by the first clamping assembly (see Figures 1-3 of Pan 2015 and Figures 9A-B of Pan 2018).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are allowed. Claims 3-7 and 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In the present application and its parent, independent claims have been rejected using:
EP 0 583 600 (“Miyamoto”)
CN 1093973 (“Padovani”)
US 2020/0316787 (“Fujihara”)
JP H08-32418 (“Sony”) in view of EP 0 583 600 (“Miyamoto”) and
Pan 2015 in view of Pan 2018
None of the above references disclose or suggest the feature of claim 3 that the base frame is pivotally coupled to the rail assembly via a first linkage arm and a second linkage arm, and the base frame is operable between a first frame position and a second frame position, where the base frame is positioned over the tread mold when the base frame is in the second frame position. Claim 4 contains allowable subject matter based on its dependency from claim 3.
None of the above references disclose or suggest the feature of claim 5 that a first actuator of the first clamping assembly is operable between a low-engagement setting and a high-engagement setting, where the first clamp is configured to be in a closed position when the first actuator is in the low-engagement setting and when the first actuator is in the high-engagement setting. Claims 6-7 contain allowable subject matter based on their dependency from claim 5.
None of the above references disclose or suggest the feature of claim 9 that a second clamping assembly comprising a second clamp is coupled to the base frame, where the first clamping assembly is configured to retract to pull a first end of the tire tread into the second clamp, and the second clamp is configured to clamp the first end of the tire tread. Claims 10-11 contain allowable subject matter based on their dependency from claim 9.
None of the above references disclose or suggest the feature of claim 12 that a third actuator is configured to extend the first clamping assembly to a position in which the first clamp extends beyond an edge of the base frame and to retract the first clamping assembly to a position in which the first clamp does not extend beyond the edge of the base frame.
Regarding claim 13, none of the above references disclose or suggest the claimed feature that the base frame includes a first edge in the shape of a circular arc, where the first linkage arm includes a guide flange configured to hug the first edge of the base frame to guide the rotation of the base frame as the tread extraction assembly pivots. Claims 14 and 17 are allowed based on their dependency from claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, none of the above references disclose or suggest the claimed feature that the base frame comprises a removable ambidextrous wing positionable on opposite sides of the base frame and including pivot apertures configured to couple to the first linkage arm and the second linkage arm.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM-6:00 PM ET.
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, Sam Zhao, can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744