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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2010/0218867).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses a pneumatic tire (molded structure body) comprising a plurality of blocks (4; instant base material) having a plurality of recesses (7; instant grooves). The recesses obtained by linking a plurality of groove elements each having a first end part and a second end part sequentially connected on a surface of the base material in a row (Fig. 2-13).
Matsumoto teaches each of its groove elements as including a first groove region with a cross section having a V-shape, an additional groove region, and a second groove region including a cross section having a V-Shape (each denoted as wide sections 5b) (Fig. 2-13). Matsumoto is not explicit to the groove wall surfaces of the first and second region having a quadrangular shape, and the additional groove region being a conical groove region in which a groove wall surface has a conical shape, the groove wall surface circumscribing a conical surface from both sides, the conical surface having a shape similar to the conical groove region. Matsumoto also does not expressly teach the conical surface having a size smaller than the conical groove region, and the first groove region and the second groove region having a same depth as the conical groove region at a connection part connected to the conical groove region and a same depth as the conical surface of the first and part and the second end part. However, Matsumoto more broadly teaches that its grooves (e.g., the wide sections 5b) may have shapes which are either pyramidal (quadrangular) or conical, though Matsumoto further characterizes its shape as “not limited” (52; instant regions). Matsumoto also teaches that the sipe length (i.e., length), sipe depth (i.e., depth) and sipe width (i.e., groove region size) may include combinations of multiple different depths and widths, respectively, and further, that these dimensions affect the water removing and edge effects of Matsumoto (0047-0048 and 0052-0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have adjusted the shape of the first and second groove regions and additional region, and to have adjusted the groove region depth and size (including at a connection part), as expressly instructed by Matsumoto, for the purpose of enhancing water removing and edge effects. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill would have tended towards the selection of a pyramidal (i.e., quadrangular) shape for the first and second regions, and a conical shape for the additional groove region, as Matsumoto expressly discloses the selection of pyramidal and conical shapes for its groove regions (0052-0053). Such selection further produces a groove wall surface which circumscribes the conical groove region from both sides in both the first and second groove regions and the conical groove region. In addition, since the selection of shape, length, depth, and width are optimizable, the claimed expressions for L1, L2, W1, W2, D1, and D2 for the claimed case (where a direction from a center of a bottom surface of the conical groove region toward a center of a bottom surface of the conical surface, and a direction from a center of a bottom surface of the conical surface of the second end part toward the center of the bottom surface of the conical groove region) are obviated.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto teaches a plurality of grooves extending int eh same direction (e.g., Fig. 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, 6-7, 8a, 9a, 10a).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto teaches a groove element having a bent connection part in which an extending direction of the region is bent by a bending angle with respect to an extending direction of the second groove region (e.g., Fig. 2a, b).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto teach the groove having a bent connection part in which the first groove region of one groove element and the second groove region of another groove element is connected and bent to each other by a bending angle (e.g., Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto teaches connected groove elements having a branched and bound structure as claimed (e.g., Fig. 2-13).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto teaches the plurality of grooves disposed on the surface of the base material and parallel with each other (Fig. 1-13).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Matsumoto teaches the plurality of grooves disposed on the surface of the base material and parallel with each other and having a plurality of bent connection parts (Fig. 1-13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Matsumoto does not teach a base material which is a pipe. The base material of Matsumoto is a pneumatic tire.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mimura et al. (US 6,390,629) disclosing a quadrangular shaped retroreflective sheeting and Jeoung et al. (US 2011/0171043) discloses a patterned surface for fluid transport.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights