CTNF 18/709,810 CTNF 101681 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-25 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on December 9 th , 2021 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2021200143 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 14 th , 2024, July 4 th , 20, and March 3 rd , 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-22 The drawings, specifically Fig. 4, are objected to because it is missing the reference number for tire 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 06-27 AIA In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application. Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains reference numbers to the drawings. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN206653561U), hereinafter "Chen". For text citation of Chen, refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner . Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses a waste tire processing method being available to recycle a waste tire (¶007, Lines 1-4), the method comprising: a hole forming process of forming a hole that is a recess or a through hole on the waste tire (Fig. 1, Element 4; ¶0042, Lines 1-2); and a crushing process performed after the hole forming process (Fig. 1, Element 5- 1; ¶0042, Lines 1-5), the crushing process of crushing the waste tire using a blade in a crusher having the blade (see annotated Fig. 1 of Chen reproduced below). PNG media_image1.png 284 757 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 1 of Chen Regarding Claim 2, Chen anticipates the waste tire processing method of Claim 1 as explained above. Chen further discloses a cutting process performed prior to the crushing process (Fig. 1-3, Element 8-2; ¶0042, Lines 1-5), the cutting process of cutting the waste tire to be separated into two or more parts (Fig. 1-3, Element 8-2; ¶0044, Lines 1-2). Regarding Claim 3, Chen anticipates the waste tire processing method of Claim 2 as explained above. Chen further discloses wherein the cutting process is performed after the hole forming process (Fig. 1-3, Element 8-2; ¶0044, Lines 1-2). Regarding Claims 4, 9, and 14, Chen anticipates the waste tire processing method of Claims 1, 2, and 3 as explained above. Chen further discloses wherein the hole is formed on a side portion of the waste tire in the hole forming process (see annotated Fig. 1 of Chen reproduced above) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 10, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Giordano (US4739724A), hereinafter “Giordano” . Regarding Claims 5, 10, 15, and 19, Chen anticipates the waste tire processing method of Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 as explained above. Chen fails to disclose wherein the hole has an opening area of 200 mm 2 or more on a surface of the waste tire. Nonetheless, Giordano teaches punches of diameters ranging from 1-5 mm inserted in the body of a tire (Col. 6, Lines 14-20). While Giordano is silent on using punches with a diameter greater than 5mm, the punch being variable in size means the diameter of the punch is a result effective variable. Chen and Giordano are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of tire processing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to punch a hole with an opening area of 200 mm 2 or more on a surface of the waste tire, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective parameter involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 11, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Nanney et al. (US20090025519A1), hereinafter "Nanney" and Giordano . Regarding Claims 6, 11, 16, and 20, Chen anticipates the waste tire processing method of Claims 1,2, 3, and 4 as explained above. Chen fails to teach wherein the hole is a recess and has a volume of 2000 mm 3 or more. Nonetheless, Nanney teaches wherein the hole is a recess (Figs. 8A-10A and 8B-10B; Elements 60A-C and Elements 61A-C; ¶0008, Lines 1-14; ¶0037, Lines 1-7; ¶0041, Lines 1-4). Chen and Nanney are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of tire processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the technique of punching a large recess on a surface of the waste tire taught by Nanney in the waste tire processing method disclosed by Chen to speed up the process by chopping up larger sections (¶0008, Lines 1-14) and ultimately facilitate recycling of the tires by reducing their bulk since chopped up tire materials are easier to handle than the tires themselves (¶0002, Lines 1-4). Chen and Nanney fail to teach a volume of 2000 mm 3 or more. Nonetheless, Giordano teaches punches of diameters ranging from 1-5 mm inserted in the body of a tire (Col. 6, Lines 14-20). While Giordano is silent on using punches with a diameter greater than 5mm, the punch being variable in size means the diameter of the punch is a result effective variable. Chen, Nanney, and Giordano are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of tire processing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to punch a recess and has a volume of 2000 mm 3 or more on a surface of the waste tire, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective parameter involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-8, 12-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Nanney . Regarding Claims 7, 12, and 17, Chen anticipates the waste tire processing method of Claims 1, 2, and 3 as explained above. Chen fails to teach wherein a plurality of the holes are formed in total on the waste tire in the hole forming process. Nonetheless, Nanney teaches wherein a plurality of the holes are formed in total on the waste tire in the hole forming process (Fig. 4, Elements 28 and 60; ¶0008, Lines 1-14; ¶0036, Lines 1-5). Chen and Nanney are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of tire processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the technique of punching a plurality of holes on the waste tire taught by Nanney in the waste tire processing method disclosed by Chen to speed up the process by chopping up larger sections (¶0008, Lines 1-14) and ultimately facilitate recycling of the tires by reducing their bulk since chopped up tire materials are easier to handle than the tires themselves (¶0002, Lines 1-4). Regarding Claims 8, 13, and 18, Chen anticipates the waste tire processing method of Claim 1, 2, and 3 as explained above. Chen fails to teach wherein the hole is formed on a side portion on each side in the tire width direction of the waste tire in the hole forming process. Nonetheless, Nanney teaches wherein the hole is formed on a side portion on each side in the tire width direction of the waste tire in the hole forming process (Fig. 4, Elements 28 and 60; ¶0008, Lines 1-14; ¶0036, Lines 1-5). Chen and Nanney are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of tire processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the technique of forming the hole on a side portion on each side in the tire width direction of the waste tire taught by Nanney in the waste tire processing method disclosed by Chen to speed up the process by chopping up larger sections (¶0008, Lines 1-14) and ultimately facilitate recycling of the tires by reducing their bulk since chopped up tire materials are easier to handle than the tires themselves (¶0002, Lines 1-4) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : CN112873640A – waste tire crushing JP2012020239A – waste tire granulation method JP2628485B2 – tire treatment method RU2008111170A - device for cutting tire RU2145541C1 – tire processing line WO9736127 – waste tire hole forming WO2009022088A1 – tire recycling Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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. /Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725 /A.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3725 Application/Control Number: 18/709,810 Page 2 Art Unit: 3725 Application/Control Number: 18/709,810 Page 3 Art Unit: 3725 Application/Control Number: 18/709,810 Page 4 Art Unit: 3725 Application/Control Number: 18/709,810 Page 5 Art Unit: 3725 Application/Control Number: 18/709,810 Page 6 Art Unit: 3725 Application/Control Number: 18/709,810 Page 7 Art Unit: 3725 Application/Control Number: 18/709,810 Page 8 Art Unit: 3725 Application/Control Number: 18/709,810 Page 9 Art Unit: 3725 Application/Control Number: 18/709,810 Page 10 Art Unit: 3725 Application/Control Number: 18/709,810 Page 11 Art Unit: 3725
Prosecution Insights