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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 September 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s submission of machine translations for CN201442202U (document A18 on the IDS filed 10 May 2024) and CH343631 (document A17 on the IDS filed 10 May 2024) on 15 September 2026. The IDS filed 10 May 2024 now complies with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 17-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacy (US5695581) (of record) in view of Sumiya et al. (DE19853474A1) (machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Lacy discloses a method of forming a retreaded tire, the method comprising:
coupling a retread element (“tread layer” (50)) to a tire casing (“tire casing” (12)) to form the retreaded tire having a tread surface (C3 L60-C4 L27); and
machining a sidewall of the retreaded tire (C4 L50-C5 L2), wherein the machining comprises:
removing a portion of the sidewall to form a concave fillet in the sidewall, the concave fillet positioned radially inward from the tread surface (Fig 6),
wherein the concave fillet includes a first fillet end (radially outermost point which “cutter” (62) removes tire material, C4 L60-66, Fig 6) and a second fillet end positioned radially inward from the first fillet end (radially outermost point which “cutter” (62) removes tire material, C4 L60-66, Fig 6),
wherein the retreaded tire includes a first bondline positioned between the retread element and a cushion gum (Fig 6, border between “tread layer” (50) and “cushion gum layer” (52)), and a second bondline positioned between the cushion gum and the tire casing (Fig 5, 6, border between “cushion gum layer” (52) and “tire casing” (12)).
While Lacy does not explicitly disclose that with regards to the concave fillet, a line is formed from the first fillet end to the second fillet end, the line being substantially parallel with portions of the sidewall of the retreaded tire located radially outward and radially inward relative to the concave fillet, wherein at least one of the first fillet end or the second fillet end is positioned between the first bondline and the second bondline, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that:
a) Lacy teaches that, in addition to the geometry shown in the figures, the width of the tread layer can match that of the tire casing so that a continuous surface exists between the tread layer and the tire casing (C4 L50-59), while still allowing for removing material when necessary;
b) Sumiya, which is within the retreading art, teaches that for a retreaded tire, a portion of the shoulder region (Fig 2, which would include parts of the tread layer that make up at least a portion of the sidewall) can be removed via grinding/”peeling” ([0055], which teaches the removal of material via “peeling”, defined in [0008] to include grinding) forming a concave fillet (“annular depression” (10)) for the benefit of promoting low rolling resistance ([0014]), and preventing stress concentration on the shoulder which could degrade the shoulder ([0018]);
c1) the combination of creating Sumiya’s annular depression (10) at the shoulder of Lacy’s tire with properly sized tread layers, where removal of portions of the tread layer and excess cushion gum is already occurring, would result in the portions of the tire sidewall directly above and below the annular depression being parallel, as well as the line formed from the first fillet end to the second fillet end being parallel; and
c2) furthermore, the combined teaching of the annular depression (10) of Sumiya to be no lower than the radial position of a peeling plane (L) of the tire casing ([0039]), meaning that the annular depression and any fillet end associated with it can be located in any material above said peeling plane and Lacy’s retread tire which comprises of a cushion gum (52) and the tread layer (50) being not part of and above the tire casing (12) (Fig 6), would result in at least one of the first fillet end or the second fillet end being positioned either in the tread layer or the cushion gum, and when a fillet end is located in the cushion gum region, said fillet end would be positioned between the first bondline and the second bondline.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Lacy teaches that the method wherein machining the sidewall of the retreaded tire further comprises: engaging the first bondline or the second bondline with a grinding bit (Fig 6, “cutter” (62)); and removing the portion of the sidewall comprising the first bondline or the second bondline to form the concave fillet in the sidewall (Fig 6, C4 L50- C5 L2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, Lacy teaches that the concave fillet includes a fillet surface extending between the first fillet end and the second fillet end, and the concave fillet is formed such that the first fillet end is positioned between the tread surface and the first bondline (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. While Lacy does not explicitly teach that the concave fillet is formed such that the first fillet end is positioned between about 0.5 and about 1.5 inches, inclusive, radially inward from the tread surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Sumiya teaches that the distance of the first fillet end (“upper end” (12) from the tread surface affects the durability of the tire ([0038]), making said distance a result-effective variable and case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.05(II)). One would have been motivated to find the optimum positioning for the first fillet end radially inward from the tread surface for the purpose of improving tire durability.
Furthermore, examiner notes that the current written specification, specifically [0057], fails to provide a conclusive showing of criticality of the claimed range of the radially distance of the first fillet end from the tread surface with sufficient specificity as to render the claimed range non-obvious over the prior art (see MPEP 2131.03(II)).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Lacy teaches that the method further comprises positioning the retreaded tire on a rotatable hub (C5 L65-C6 L19); and rotating the retreaded tire via the rotatable hub while maintaining a grinding bit (“cutter” (62)) in a stationary position relative to an axis of rotation of the rotatable hub, the grinding bit configured to remove the portion of the sidewall to form the concave fillet (C5 L12-18).
Regarding claim 17, Lacy discloses a method of forming a retreaded tire, the method comprising;
providing a tire casing ("tire casing" (12)) having a casing profile;
providing a retread element ("tread layer" (50)) having a back side and a front side, the front side having a tread surface (Fig 6);
aligning the retread element on the tire casing to produce a retreaded tire assembly (C3 L60-C4 L27);
curing the retreaded tire assembly such that the back side is coupled to the tire casing to form the retreaded tire (C4 L11-43); and
machining a sidewall of the retreaded tire to remove a portion of the retreaded tire to form a concave fillet contiguously and circumferentially about the sidewall of the retreaded tire (C4 L50-59, Fig 6),
wherein the concave fillet includes a first fillet end (radially outermost point which “cutter” (62) removes tire material, C4 L60-66, Fig 6) and a second fillet end positioned radially inward from the first fillet end (radially outermost point which “cutter” (62) removes tire material, C4 L60-66, Fig 6),
wherein the retreaded tire includes a first bondline positioned between the retread element and a cushion gum (Fig 6, border between “tread layer” (50) and “cushion gum layer” (52)), and a second bondline positioned between the cushion gum and the tire casing (Fig 5, 6, border between “cushion gum layer” (52) and “tire casing” (12)).
While Lacy does not explicitly disclose that with regards to the concave fillet, a line is formed from the first fillet end to the second fillet end, the line being substantially parallel with portions of the sidewall of the retreaded tire located radially outward and radially inward relative to the concave fillet, wherein at least one of the first fillet end or the second fillet end is positioned between the first bondline and the second bondline, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that:
a) Lacy teaches that, in addition to the geometry shown in the figures, the width of the tread layer can match that of the tire casing so that a continuous surface exists between the tread layer and the tire casing (C4 L50-59), while still allowing for removing material when necessary;
b) Sumiya, which is within the retreading art, teaches that for a retreaded tire, a portion of the shoulder region (Fig 2, which would include parts of the tread layer that make up at least a portion of the sidewall) can be removed via grinding/”peeling” ([0055], which teaches the removal of material via “peeling”, defined in [0008] to include grinding) forming a concave fillet (“annular depression” (10)) for the benefit of promoting low rolling resistance ([0014]), and preventing stress concentration on the shoulder which could degrade the shoulder ([0018]);
c1) the combination of creating Sumiya’s annular depression (10) at the shoulder of Lacy’s tire with properly sized tread layers, where removal of portions of the tread layer and excess cushion gum is already occurring, would result in the portions of the tire sidewall directly above and below the annular depression being parallel, as well as the line formed from the first fillet end to the second fillet end being parallel; and
c2) furthermore, the combined teaching of the annular depression (10) of Sumiya to be no lower than the radial position of a peeling plane (L) of the tire casing ([0039]), meaning that the annular depression and any fillet end associated with it can be located in any material above said peeling plane and Lacy’s retread tire which comprises of a cushion gum (52) and the tread layer (50) being not part of and above the tire casing (12) (Fig 6), would result in at least one of the first fillet end or the second fillet end being positioned either in the tread layer or the cushion gum, and when a fillet end is located in the cushion gum region, said fillet end would be positioned between the first bondline and the second bondline.
Regarding claim 18, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 17 as set forth above. Additionally, modified Lacy teaches that the retread element comprises a tread span between the front side and the back side (Fig 6); the first fillet end and the second fillet end are separated radially by a fillet width, (Fig 6); the second fillet end is positioned radially inward of the tread surface by a first distance, the first distance being less than the tread span (Fig 6); and the first fillet end is positioned radially inward of the tread surface by a second distance, the second distance being greater than the tread span (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 17 as set forth above. Additionally, Lacy teaches that machining the sidewall of the retreaded tire includes engaging the sidewall of the retreaded tire radially inward of the retread element with a grinding bit (“cutter” (62)) and removing the portion of the retreaded tire to form the concave fillet (C4 L60-66).
Regarding claim 22, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given the combined teachings of Lacy and Sumiya as set forth above in section b-c2 in the rejection of claim 1, modified Lacy teaches that the second fillet end is positioned between the first bondline and the second bondline.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacy (US5695581) (of record) and Sumiya et al. (DE19853474A1) (machine translation) (of record) as set forth above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 and in further view of Laube (US3290831) (of record).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Lacy teaches that the method further comprises maintaining the retreaded tire in a stationary position such that the retreaded tire does not rotate about an axis of rotation of the retreaded tire (C6 L10-15); that the machining of the sidewall is done through engaging a cutting mechanism (“cutter” (62)) with the sidewall of the retreaded tire (C6 L10-15); and translating the cutting mechanism and the actuator circumferentially about the retreaded tire relative to a rotational axis of the retreaded tire (C6 L10-15). While Lacy does not explicitly teach that the cutting mechanism is a grinding bit operably coupled to an actuator configured to rotate the grinding bit about a grinding bit axis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that:
a) Lacy teaches that “cutter 62 may be designed and oriented in a variety of shapes and positions” (C5 L3-5); and
b) Laube, which is within the tire machining art, teaches that the machining of a tire sidewall can be performed with a grinding bit operably coupled to an actuator configured to rotate the grinding bit about a grinding bit axis (“grinding wheel” (16), C3 L50-62) for the benefit of an improved finish (C5 L35-56).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 20, 21 and 23 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art combination of record is Lacy (US5695581) (of record) and Sumiya et al. (DE19853474A1) (machine translation) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Additionally, Lacy teaches that that the method further comprises positioning the cushion gum (“cushion gum layer” (52)) on the tire casing (C3 L60-C4 L10); positioning the retread element on the cushion gum such that the cushion gum is interposed between the retread element and the tire casing (C4 L8-10); and curing the cushion gum to form the retreaded tire (C4 L10-18), wherein machining the sidewall of the retreaded tire further comprises removing a portion of the cushion gum and removing a portion of the retread element (Fig 6, C4 L60-66). However, the prior art combination of record fails to teach that the machining the sidewall of the retreaded tire further comprises removing a portion of the tire casing, given that while Lacy does teach that a portion of the tire casing can be removed (Fig 6, C4 L60-66), Sumiya teaches away from removing tire casing material to ensure no difficulty arises in retreading due to a narrowing of the tread strip width ([0019]), such a narrowing would reduce the stability of the contact area ([0018]) and narrow the service life of the tire ([0009]).
As claims 9 and 10 are dependent on claim 8, they stand as objected to for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the closest prior art combination of record is Lacy (US5695581) (of record) and Sumiya et al. (DE19853474A1) (machine translation) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 19. Lacy teaches that the retread element is cured to the tire casing using the cushion gum (“cushion gum layer” (52)), and wherein the portion of the retreaded tire comprises each of the cushion gum and the retread element (Fig 6, C4 L60-66). However, the prior art combination of record fails to teach that the portion of the retreaded tire further comprises the tire casing, given that while Lacy does teach that a portion of the tire casing can be removed (Fig 6, C4 L60-66), Sumiya teaches away from removing tire casing material to ensure no difficulty arises in retreading due to a narrowing of the tread strip width ([0019]), such a narrowing would reduce the stability of the contact area ([0018]) and narrow the service life of the tire ([0009]).
Regarding claim 21, the closest prior art combination of record is Lacy (US5695581) (of record) and Sumiya et al. (DE19853474A1) (machine translation) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. However, the combined prior art of record fails to teach that the first fillet end is positioned between the first bondline and the second bondline, given that positioning the first fillet end (which is above the second fillet end) between the first and second bondline of modified Lacy would require for the concave fillet to extend from the cushion gum into the tire casing, which means a portion of the tire casing would be removed to form the concave fillet, and Sumiya teaches away from removing tire casing material to ensure no difficulty arises in retreading due to a narrowing of the tread strip width ([0019]), such a narrowing would reduce the stability of the contact area ([0018]) and narrow the service life of the tire ([0009]).
Regarding claim 23, the closest prior art combination of record is Lacy (US5695581) (of record) and Sumiya et al. (DE19853474A1) (machine translation) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. While Sumiya does teaches that the concave fillet defines a fillet width between the first fillet end and the second fillet end (Fig 4,5), the combined prior art of record fails to teach that the fillet width is approximately equal to a tread thickness of the retread element, given that Sumiya teaches that the concave fillet is no lower than the peeling surface, or the top of the tire casing ([0039]), meaning the concave fillet can not be any wider than the combined thickness of cushion gum and retread element of Lacy placed upon said peeling surface, and Sumiya teaches that an upper end of the concave fillet is located below tread surface by at least a third of a depth of a main tread groove ([0038]), meaning the concave fillet width cannot be greater than the thickness of the retread element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding p.10 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that Sumiya’s teachings are in regards to the manufacture of a new tire as opposed to a retreaded tire and that Sumiya’s teaching of the depression being above the peeling plane L teaches away from the claimed invention. Examiner disagrees, noting that retreading of a tire using Sumiya’s teachings is explicitly considered, including but not limited to in [0014], [0020], [0038] and Fig 7. With regards to the teaching of the peeling plane, while it is true that Sumiya teaches for the fillet to be above the peeling surface L and therefore above the tire casing ([0019]), examiner notes that the current language of claim 1 does not require for the removal of a portion of the tire casing, only the removal of “a portion of the sidewall to from a concave fillet”, which as shown in Fig. 8 and disclosed in [0056] of applicant’s specification, said “sidewall” includes the cushion gum, the retread element and the tire casing. As set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, as the cushion gum and retread element of the combined teachings of Sumiya and Lacy would be above said peeling plane L, removal of material from them to form the concave fillet in the sidewall without removing material from the tire casing is considered to read upon the claimed invention.
In response to applicant's arguments on p.10 against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Feider et al. (US20040055683) teaches the creation of a concave fillet (“side groove” (24)) in a tire to facilitate proper alignment of a tread element during retreading ([0076]-[0078]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is 571-272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
