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 filed 10 May 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. In particular, document numbers A17 and A18 only list the website address from which the reference was pulled from and neither the listings in the information disclosure statement nor the corresponding attached documents disclose the patent number and/or patent application publication number of said references. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17, L9: form a concave fillet contiguously and circumferentially
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sumiya et al. (DE19853474A) (machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Sumiya discloses a method of forming a retread tire, the method comprising:
coupling a retread element (“tread” (1)) to a tire casing (Fig 2, tire component including “sidewall” (2)) to form the retreaded tire having a tread surface ([0008]); and
machining a sidewall (“sidewall” (2)) of the retreaded tire, wherein the machining comprises:
removing a portion of the sidewall to form a concave fillet (“annular depression” (10)) in the sidewall ([0055], which teaches the removal of material via “peeling”, defined in [0008] to include grinding), the concave fillet positioned radially inward from the tread surface (Fig 2),
wherein the concave fillet includes a first fillet end (“upper end” (12)) and a second fillet end positioned radially inward from the first fillet end (“lower end” (11)), and
wherein 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 (Fig 2, 3).
Regarding claim 17, Sumiya discloses a method of forming a retreaded tire, the method comprising:
providing a tire casing having a casing profile (Fig 2, tire component including “sidewall” (2));
providing a retread element having a back side and a front side, the front side having a tread surface (“tread strip” (1a), Fig 7);
aligning the retread element on the tire casing to produce a retreaded tire assembly ([0060]);
curing the retreaded tire assembly such that the back side is coupled to the tire casing to form the retreaded tire ([0008]); and
machining a sidewall of the retreaded tire (“sidewall” (2)) to remove a portion of the retreaded tire to form a concave fillet (“annular depression” (10)) contiguously and circumferentially about the sidewall of the retreaded tire (Fig 2) ([0055], which teaches the removal of material via “peeling”, defined in [0008] to include grinding),
wherein the concave fillet includes a first fillet end (“upper end” (12)) and a second fillet end positioned radially inward from the first fillet end (“lower end” (11)), and
wherein 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 (Fig 2, 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumiya et al. (DE19853474A1) (machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Sumiya discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Sumiya does not explicitly disclose that the concave fillet has a radius of curvature between about 0.75 and about 5 inches, inclusive, 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 case law holds that changes in shape are matters of design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant (see MPEP 2144.04). In the instant case, the radius of curvature of the concave fillet is considered to be a matter of design choice.
Furthermore, examiner notes that the current written specification, specifically [0059], fails to provide a conclusive showing of criticality of the claimed range of the concave fillet’s radius of curvature with sufficient specificity as to render the claimed range non-obvious over the prior art (see MPEP 2131.03(II)).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumiya et al. (DE19853474A1) (machine translation) as set forth above in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 and in further view of Lacy (US5695581) (of record) and Laube (US3290831) (of record).
Regarding claim 7, Sumiya discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Sumiya does disclose that step of machining comprises a step of grinding ([0055], which teaches the removal of material via “peeling”, defined in [0008] to include grinding), Sumiya is silent as to how the grinding takes place, specifically that a grinding bit is operably coupled to an actuator configured to rotate the grinding bit about a grinding bit axis and 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; engaging a cutting mechanism with the sidewall of the retreaded tire; and translating the cutting mechanism and the actuator circumferentially about the retreaded tire relative to a rotational axis of the retreaded tire. However, 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:
a1) Lacy, which is within the retreading art, teaches that a method of machining a retread tire can comprise of 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);
a2) case law holds that the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is well within the ability of a person of ordinary skill to find obvious (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)); and
a3) one would have been motivated to use Lacy’s known method of machining retread tires in the method of Sumiya for the predictable result of removing tire material/grinding/peeling;
b) Lacy teaches that “cutter 62 may be designed and oriented in a variety of shapes and positions” (C5 L3-5); and
c) 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).
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12 and 17-20 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).
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).
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, 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 both the tread layer and the sidewall/tire casing) 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]);
c) 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 tire casing, 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.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Lacy teaches that the method wherein the retreaded tire further comprises a first bondline extending circumferentially about the retreaded tire, the first bondline positioned between the retread element and the tire casing (Fig 6, border between “tread layer” (50) and “cushion gum layer” (52)); and machining the sidewall of the retreaded tire further comprises: engaging the first bondline with a grinding bit (Fig 6, “cutter” (62)); and removing the portion of the sidewall comprising the first 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 5, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Lacy does not explicitly teach that the concave fillet has a radius of curvature between about 0.75 and about 5 inches, inclusive, 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 case law holds that changes in shape are matters of design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant (see MPEP 2144.04). In the instant case, the radius of curvature of the concave fillet is considered to be a matter of design choice.
Furthermore, examiner notes that the current written specification, specifically [0059], fails to provide a conclusive showing of criticality of the claimed range of the concave fillet’s radius of curvature 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 8, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Lacy teaches that the method further comprises positioning a 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), the retreaded tire having a first bondline positioned between the retread element and the cushion gum (Fig 5, 6, border between “tread layer” (50) and “cushion gum layer” (52)), and a second bondline positioned between the cushion gum and the tire casing, the second bondline being positioned radially inward of the first bondline (Fig 5, 6, border between “cushion gum layer” (52) and “tire casing” (12)), wherein machining the sidewall of the retreaded tire further comprises removing a portion of the tire casing, removing a portion of the cushion gum, and removing a portion of the retread element (Fig 6, C4 L60-66).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Additionally, Lacy teaches that removing the portion of the sidewall includes removing a portion of the first bondline and removing a portion of the second bondline (Fig 6, C4 L60-66).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 8 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, the fillet surface being contiguous with at least one of the first bondline or the second bondline (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 10 as set forth above. Additionally, Lacy teaches that the first fillet end is positioned between the tread surface and the first bondline, and the second fillet end is positioned radially inward of the second bondline (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 10 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 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).
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, 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 both the tread layer and the tire casing) 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]), prevents stress concentration on the shoulder which could degrade the shoulder ([0018]);
c) 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 tire casing, 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.
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 20, modified Lacy teaches all limitations of claim 19 as set forth above. Additionally, Lacy teaches that the retread element is cured to the tire casing using a cushion gum (“cushion gum layer” (52)), and wherein the portion of the retreaded tire comprises each of the tire casing, the cushion gum, and the retread element (Fig 6, C4 L60-66).
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) 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 17-20 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.
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 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
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights