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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length (i.e., exceeds 150 words). 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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “sidewalls and with” in line 4 should be written as –sidewalls, and with— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “shell , and wherein,” in line 9 should be written as –shell, and wherein,” so as to remove the additional spacing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “in radial section in the form” in line 12 should be written as –in a radial section in a form— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a circular arc” in line 2 should be written as –the circular arc— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a circular arc” in line 2 should be written as –the circular arc— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the form of a circular arc” in line 2 should be written as –a form of a circular arc—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the form of a circular arc” in line 4 should be written as –the form of the circular arc—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “sidewall shells” in line 3 should be written as –the sidewall shells—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the vulcanizing mold and the tire has” in line 2 should be written as –the vulcanizing mold has—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “rib flanks merge tangentially” in line 2 should be written as –rib flanks merged tangentially—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the mold partitions” in line 4 should be written as –the mold partitions—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a circular arc” in line 2 should be written as –the circular arc—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the pneumatic tire” in line 2 should be written as –the tire— for consistency in claim language throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “in the form of a circular arc with radii” in lines 2-3 should be written as –each in the form of the circular arc with radii—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “in radial section” in line 5 should be written as –in a radial section—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The newly added claim recites “the curvature of the radially outer rib flank in the form of a circular arc is based on a circular arc with a radius at 0.20 mm,” but this limitation of a radius at 0.20 mm is unsupported by the originally filed claims and specification, which both disclose only that “the radially outer rib flank in the form of a circular arc is based on a circular arc with a radius which is in particular at least 0.20 mm greater than the radius of that circular arc which forms the basis for the curvature of the radially inner rib flank in the form of a circular arc, wherein the curvature of the radially outer rib flank in the form of a circular arc is based on a circular arc with a radius which is 1.30 mm to 2.50 mm, and wherein the curvature of the radially inner rib flank in the form of a circular arc is based on a circular arc with a radius which is 1.10 mm to 1.50 mm” ([0017]). In other words, the curvature of the radially outer rib flank in the form of a circular arc is based on a circular arc with a radius of 1.30 mm to 2.50 mm or it may be at least 0.20 mm greater than the radius of that circular arc which forms the basis for the curvature of the radially inner rib flank in the form of a circular arc. However, there is no support for the curvature of the radially outer rib flank in the form of a circular arc is based on a circular arc with a radius at 0.20 mm. The examiner further notes that, while the claim limitations in the dependent claims currently do not combine in this manner, it would also be unclear then how the curvature of the radially outer depression flank in the form of a circular arc is based on a circular arc with a radius which is 1.30 mm to 2.00 mm and the curvature of the radially outer rib flank in the form of a circular arc is based on a circular arc with a radius of 0.20 mm when the radially outer depression flank forms the radially outer rib flank and the radii would then need to correspond with one another.
Claims 10-14 and 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the phrases “the end” and “the inner side” in line 7, and “the region” in line 10 lack sufficient antecedent basis. Moreover, the claim language switches from singular to plural throughout the claims (i.e., inner side to inner sides, mold partitions to mold partition, depression to depressions, etc.). The examiner suggests either ensuring consistency in claim language or including a claim limitation for each respective portion of the pluralities that include the singularities (e.g., a respective mold partition of the plurality of mold partitions having a depression, each mold partition having a respective depression, etc.).
Claims 11-14 and 16-22 are indefinite by dependence on claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “the inner sides of the segments and the sidewall shells” in lines 2-3 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 12-14 and 16-22 are indefinite by dependence on claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the phrases “the curvature” in line 1 and “the radially outer depression flank” in line 2 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, the phrases “the curvature” in line 1 and “the radially inner depression flank” in line 2 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 14 is indefinite by dependence on claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “the further portion of the sidewall” in line 1 is unclear as a portion of the sidewall was not previously disclosed, and thus it is unclear now what further portion this is referring to. Moreover, the claim later refers to “the portion of the sidewall” in line 4 and it is unclear if this is the further portion or a new portion which then lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “the bead region” in lines 4-5 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 17-22 are indefinite by dependence on claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “the tread in line 2 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 18, the phrases “the shoulder flanks” in line 3, “the outer sides” in line 3, and “the profile ring” in line 5 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 19-22 are indefinite by dependence on claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the phrases “the curvature” in line 1 and “the radially outer rib flank” in lines 1-2 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “a radius at 2.0 mm” in line 2 is unclear. Moreover, in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) above, and Applicant’s specification ([0017], [0025]), the examiner believes Applicant intended a curvature of a radially outer rib flank in a form of a circular arc with a radius at least 0.20 mm greater than a radius of a curvature of a radially inner rib flank in a form of a circular arc. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes the aforementioned interpretation from Applicant’s specification for “a radius at 2.0 mm.”
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “a delimiting surface lies closely against a delimiting surface of the sidewall shell” in lines 1-2 is unclear. It is unclear if they are both the same delimiting surface, which is redundant, or if it is delimiting surface of another component, which it is unclear then which component, that lies closely against a delimiting surface of the sidewall shell. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes either interpretation will satisfy the claim limitation.
Claims 21-22 are indefinite by dependence on claim 20.
Regarding claim 23, the phrases “the inner mold surfaces” in line 12 and “the inner mold surfaces” in lines 12-13 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 24-28 are indefinite by dependence on claim 23.
Regarding claim 27, the phrase “the depth” in line 1 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 28 is indefinite by dependence on claim 27.
Regarding claim 29, the phrase “the shoulder flanks” in line 12 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 30 is indefinite by dependence on claim 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-11, 17-24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogihara et al. (US 20220168981).
Regarding claim 10, Ogihara discloses a vulcanizing mold for vulcanizing a pneumatic vehicle tire (Fig. 1), the mold comprising: a number of segments (Fig. 1: 2, 14) of a segment ring that are arranged movably in the radial direction for forming a tread (Fig. 1: 21) with shoulder flanks ([0020]), also with sidewall shells (Fig. 1: 3, 3A, 3B) for forming sidewalls (Fig. 1: 22) and with mold partitions (Fig. 2: 4, 5) between the segments and the sidewall shells (Figs. 1-2), wherein, with the mold closed, the sidewall shells (Figs. 1-2: 3) are in contact with the segments of the segment ring (Fig. 2: 2) at the mold partitions (Fig. 2: 4, 5), wherein respectively formed at the end on the inner side of the mold, along the mold partition (Fig. 2: 4, 5), is a circumferential depression (Figs. 1-2: 15) ([0034]-[0036]), which is delimited by two depression flanks (Fig. 2: 10, 11), one of which is formed on the segments (Fig. 2: 2) and the other of which is formed on the sidewall shell (Fig. 2: 3), and wherein, around the region of the mold partitions, the mold inner sides are in line with one another (Fig. 2: P) ([0034]-[0036]), interrupted by the depressions (Fig. 2: 15), wherein the depression flanks of the depressions are curved outward in radial section, in the form of a circular arc (Fig. 2: R1, R2).
Regarding claim 11, Ogihara further discloses the depression flanks (Fig. 2: 10, 11) of the depressions merge tangentially into the inner sides of the segments (Fig. 2: 2) and the sidewall shells (Fig. 2: 3).
Regarding claim 17, Ogihara further discloses a profile ring (Fig. 1: 2) is present forming the tread (Fig. 1: 21) ([0020]), comprising a number of segments (Fig. 1: 14) that are moveable in the radial direction and sidewall shells (Fig. 1: 3, 3A, 3B) that are movable in the axial direction ([0017], [0020]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 18, Ogihara further discloses the tire (Figs. 1, 3) formed after vulcanization in the vulcanizing mold has a plurality of rib flanks (Fig. 3: 26, 27) merged tangentially both into the shoulder flanks (Fig. 3: 28) and into the outer sides of the sidewalls (Fig. 3: 22); the rib flanks (Fig. 3: 26, 27) are formed in the vulcanizing mold (Figs. 1-2) in the region of the mold partition (Fig. 2: 4, 5) between the sidewall shell (Fig. 2: 3) and segments of the profile ring (Fig. 2: 2).
Regarding claim 19, Ogihara further discloses a curvature of a radially outer rib flank in a form of a circular arc with a radius preferably equal to a radius of curvature of the radially outer depression flank (Fig. 2: R1) ([0028]), and a curvature of a radially inner rib flank in a form of a circular arc with a radius preferably equal to a radius of curvature of the radially inner depression flank (Fig. 2: R2) ([0028]), wherein a radius of curvature (Fig. 3: r1) of the radially outer rib flank is 1.2 to 2.0 times a radius of curvature (Fig. 3: r2) of the radially inner rib flank ([0008]), wherein the radius of curvature of the radially outer depression flank (Fig. 2: R1) is preferably not less than 2.0 and not greater than 10.0 mm ([0059]-[0060]), and the radius of curvature of the radially inner depression flank (Fig. 2: R2) is preferably not less than 1.0 mm and not greater than 5.0 mm ([0057]-[0058]). Accordingly, a curvature of a radially outer rib flank in a form of a circular arc with a radius 1.0 to 5.0 mm greater than a radius of a curvature of a radially inner rib flank in a form of a circular arc, satisfies the claimed range of at least 0.20 mm greater than. Case law holds that where prior art teaches a specific example falling within the claimed range, the claimed range is anticipated. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 20, Ogihara further discloses a delimiting surface (Fig. 2: 5) lies closely against a delimiting surface (Fig. 2: 4) of the sidewall shell (Fig. 2: 3) and thereby forms the mold partition (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Ogihara further discloses a segment (Fig. 1: 14; Figs. 1-2: 2) of the number of segments forms the shoulder flank of the pneumatic tire (Figs. 1-2); wherein the sidewall shell (Figs. 1-2: 3) forms portions on the sidewall (Figs. 1, 3: 22); wherein a depression (Fig. 2: 15) is formed at the end of the inner side of the mold and along the mold partition (Fig. 2: 4, 5), which is delimited by two depression flanks (Fig. 2: 10, 11), one of which is formed on the segment (Fig. 2: 2) and the other of which is formed on the sidewall shell (Fig. 2: 3).
The examiner notes that the claim limitation “wherein a depression is formed at the end of the inner side of the mold and along the mold partition, which is delimited by two depression flanks, one of which is formed on the segment and the other of which is formed on the sidewall shell” is already recited in claim 10 and is therefore redundant.
Regarding claim 22, Ogihara further discloses after vulcanization, the depression (Fig. 2: 15) forms a rib (Fig. 3: 25) on the tire ([0039]), and the depression flanks (Fig. 2: 10, 11) are curved convexly, in the form of a circular arc with radii r1 and r2 (Fig. 2: R1, R2), and thereby form tangential transitions to the inner sides of the segments (Fig. 2: 2) and the sidewall shell (Fig. 2: 3).
Regarding claim 23, Ogihara discloses a vulcanizing mold for vulcanizing a pneumatic vehicle tire (Fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of segments (Fig. 1: 14) forming a segment ring (Figs. 1-2: 2) and being movable in a radial direction for forming a tread (Figs. 1, 3: 21) including shoulder flanks ([0020]); sidewall shells (Figs. 1-2: 3, 3A, 3B) configured to form outer sides of sidewalls (Fig. 1: 22) of the tire (Fig. 1: 20); and mold partitions (Figs. 1-2: 4, 5) each defined at an interface between a respective segment (Figs. 1-2: 2) and a respective sidewall shell (Figs. 1-2: 3) when the mold is in a closed state (Fig. 1: Y); wherein the segments (Figs. 1-2: 2) and the sidewall shells (Figs. 1-2: 3) define, along each mold partition (Figs. 1-2: 4,5), a circumferential depression (Fig. 2: 15) extending along the mold partition (Fig. 2: 4, 5) ([0034]-[0036]), the depression being bounded by a radially outer depression flank (Fig. 2: 10) formed on one of the segments (Fig. 2: 2) and a radially inner depression flank (Fig. 2: 11) formed on the sidewall shell (Fig. 2: 3), wherein the depression flanks (Fig. 2: 10, 11) are each curved outward (Fig. 2: R1, R2) in radial section and merge tangentially into respective inner mold surfaces (Fig. 2: 6, 7) of the segments (Fig. 2: 2) and the sidewall shells (Fig. 2: 3), and wherein the inner mold surfaces of the segments forming the shoulder flanks and the inner mold surfaces of the sidewall shells radially inward of the mold partitions are aligned with one another such that, except for the depressions, a continuous contour (Fig. 2: P) is provided across the mold partitions for forming an outer side of the tire with the shoulder flanks in line with the sidewalls ([0034]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 24, Ogihara further discloses the radially outer depression flank (Fig. 2: 10) has a first radius of curvature (Fig. 2: R1) and the radially inner depression flank (Fig. 2: 11) has a second radius of curvature (Fig. 2: R2) that is smaller than the first radius of curvature ([0006], [0023]).
Regarding claim 26, Ogihara further discloses the depression flanks (Fig. 2: 10, 11) are configured such that a rib (Fig. 3: 25) formed on the tire during vulcanization has rib flanks (Fig. 3: 26, 27) that merge tangentially into both the shoulder flanks (Fig. 3: 28) and the sidewalls (Fig. 3: 22).
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.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ogihara et al. (US 20220168981).
Regarding claim 29, Ogihara discloses a vulcanizing mold for vulcanizing a pneumatic vehicle tire (Fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of segments (Fig. 1: 14) forming a segment ring (Figs. 1-2: 2) and being movable in a radial direction for forming a tread (Fig. 1: 21) including shoulder flanks ([0020]); sidewall shells (Figs. 1-2: 3, 3A, 3B) configured to form outer sides of sidewalls (Figs. 1, 3: 22) of the tire (Fig. 1: 20); and mold partitions (Figs. 1-2: 4, 5) each defined at an interface between a respective segment (Fig. 2: 2) and a respective sidewall shell (Fig. 2: 3) when the mold is in a closed state (Fig. 1: Y); wherein the segments (Figs. 1-2: 2) and the sidewall shells (Figs. 1-2: 3) define, along each mold partition (Figs. 1-2: 4, 5), a circumferential depression (Fig. 2: 15) extending along the mold partition ([0034]-[0036]), the depression (Fig. 2: 15) being bounded by a radially outer depression flank (Fig. 2: 10) and a radially inner depression flank (Fig. 2: 11); wherein the depression flanks (Fig. 2: 10, 11) are curved (Fig. 2: R1, R2) outward in a radial section and merge tangentially into inner mold surfaces (Fig. 2: 6, 7) of the segments (Fig. 2: 2) and the sidewall shells (Fig. 2: 3), and wherein the inner mold surfaces of the segments (Fig. 2: 6) forming the shoulder flanks and the inner mold surfaces of the sidewall shells (Fig. 2: 7) radially inward of the mold partitions (Fig. 2: 4, 5) are aligned with one another to form a continuous contour (Fig. 2: P) interrupted only by the depressions (Fig. 2: 15) ([0034]-[0036]); and whereby a circumferential rib (Fig. 3: 25) formed on the tire (Fig. 3: 20) during vulcanization has rib flanks (Fig. 3: 26, 27) that merge smoothly into both the shoulder flanks (Fig. 3: 28) and the sidewalls (Fig. 3: 22).
The limitation “to allow removal of the rib with reduced crack formation” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the vulcanizing mold that differentiates it from the mold disclosed by Ogihara. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Ogihara discloses a vulcanizing mold as claimed which is capable of allowing removal of the rib with reduced crack formation.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogihara et al. (US 20220168981) as applied to claim 29 above.
Regarding claim 30, Ogihara further discloses radii of curvature (Fig. 3: r1, r2) of the radially outer and radially inner depression flanks (Fig. 3: 26, 27) differ such that the radially outer depression flank has a larger radius (Fig. 3: r1) ([0008]), whereby the rib (Fig. 3: 25) formed during vulcanization has asymmetrical rib flanks (Fig. 3: 26, 27) ([0008]), and wherein each depression (Fig. 2: 15) has a depth (Fig. 2: d) in a range of preferably not greater than 2.0 mm and not less than 0.4 mm ([0035]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.00 mm to 2.50 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the depth of each depression.
The limitation “that reduce stress concentration during trimming” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the vulcanizing mold that differentiates it from the mold disclosed by Ogihara. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Ogihara discloses a vulcanizing mold as claimed which is capable of forming ribs during vulcanization that reduce stress concentration during trimming.
The limitation “whereby a volume of material forming a trimming rib is minimized while maintaining sufficient rib formation for controlled removal” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the vulcanizing mold that differentiates it from the mold disclosed by Ogihara. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Ogihara discloses a vulcanizing mold as claimed which is capable of minimizing a volume of material forming a trimming rib while maintaining sufficient rib formation for controlled removal.
Claim(s) 12-14, 25, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogihara et al. (US 20220168981) as applied to claims 10-11, 23-24, and 26 above.
Regarding claim 12, Ogihara further discloses the curvature of the radially outer depression flank (Fig. 2: 10) in the form of a circular arc is based on a circular arc with a radius (Fig. 2: R1) which is preferably not less than 2.0 mm and not greater than 10 mm ([0024], [0059]-[0060]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.30 mm to 2.00 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the radius of curvature of the radially outer depression flank.
Regarding claim 13, Ogihara further discloses the curvature of the radially inner depression flank in the form of a circular arc is based on a circular arc with a radius which is preferably not greater than 5.0 mm and not less than 1.0 mm ([0025], [0057]-[0058]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.10 mm to 1.50 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the radius of curvature of the radially inner depression flank.
Regarding claim 14, Ogihara further discloses the depressions (Fig. 2: 15) have a depth (Fig. 2: d) of preferably not greater than 2.0 mm and not less than 0.4 mm ([0035]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.00 mm to 2.50 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the depth of the depressions.
Regarding claim 25, Ogihara further discloses the first radius of curvature is in a range of preferably not less than 2.0 mm and not greater than 10 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.30 mm to 2.50 mm ([0024], [0059]-[0060]), and the second radius of curvature is in a range of preferably not greater than 5.0 mm and not less than 1.0 mm ([0025], [0057]-[0058]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.10 mm to 1.50 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the first and second radii of curvature.
Regarding claim 27, Ogihara further discloses the depth (Fig. 2: d) of each depression (Fig. 2: 15) is in a range of preferably not less than 0.4 mm and not greater than 2.0 mm ([0035]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.30 mm to 1.70 mm, and the inner mold surface (Figs. 1-2: 7) of each sidewall shell (Figs. 1-2: 3, 3A, 3B) is shaped to form a circumferentially continuous flat surface portion of the sidewall radially inward of the mold partition (Figs. 1-2: 4, 5) and a further sidewall portion that merges tangentially with the flat surface portion and is curved outward in radial section (Figs. 1-2). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the depth of each depression.
The examiner notes that the limitation “is shaped to form a circumferentially continuous flat surface portion of the sidewall radially inward of the mold partition” is very broad and does not expressly recite any structure or boundaries for the claim limitation. Accordingly, even the most miniscule flat surface portion formed along the mold surface, as illustrated in Ogihara, will satisfy the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 28, Ogihara further discloses depressions (Fig. 2: 15) extend circumferentially continuously around the mold along each mold partition (Fig. 2: 4, 5) so as to form circumferential ribs (Fig. 3: 25) on the tire after vulcanization ([0034]-[0036]).
The examiner notes that the claim limitation “the further sidewall portion is configured to form a thin extra material layer on the tire having a thickness of 0.50 mm to 1.50 mm” is very broad and does not expressly require what the material is, or provide a structure for the mold that would differentiate between different materials and layers. Accordingly, any layer on the tire having a thickness of 0.50 mm to 1.50 mm from the surface of the sidewall is considered to satisfy the claim limitation, which will necessarily be present in the tire produced by the mold of Ogihara.
Claim(s) 16 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogihara et al. (US 20220168981) as applied to claims 10, 23, and 26 above, and further in view of Takada (US 6123131) (of record).
Regarding claim 16, Ogihara further discloses a portion of the sidewall (Fig. 1: 22) curved in the form of a circular arc extends up to the bead region (Fig. 1: 23).
Takada discloses a tire comprising a shoulder rib (Figs. 1-2: 9), a circumferentially continuous flat surface portion (Figs. 1-2: 10, 11) of a sidewall radially inward of said rib, and a further sidewall portion that merges tangentially with the flat surface portion and is curved outward in radial section (Figs. 1-2: KR2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, or at least found obvious, that the tire of Takada would be formed using a vulcanizing mold as is conventional in the tire art, as demonstrated by Ogihara. Takada further discloses a further portion of the sidewall is curved in the form of a circular arc is based on a circular arc with a radius (Figs. 1-2: KR2). The radius of curvature is set in the range of from 0.4 to 0.6 times a groove bottom line height (Col. 3 lines 9-10). In other words, the radius of curvature of the further portion of the sidewall is considered to be a result effective variable that will affect the basic profile of the tire. While Takada does not explicitly disclose the value for the radius of curvature of the further portion of the sidewall, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for the radius of curvature of the further portion of the sidewall. Absent unexpected results, 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)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the radius of curvature of the further portion of the sidewall in order to provide the desired basic profile of the tire.
Regarding claims 27-28, Ogihara discloses the claim limitations as discussed above.
Alternatively, Takada discloses a tire comprising a shoulder rib (Figs. 1-2: 9), a circumferentially continuous flat surface portion (Figs. 1-2: 10, 11) of a sidewall radially inward of said rib, and a further sidewall portion that merges tangentially with the flat surface portion and is curved outward in radial section (Figs. 1-2: KR2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, or at least found obvious, that the tire of Takada would be formed using a vulcanizing mold as is conventional in the tire art, as demonstrated by Ogihara. Thereby, the corresponding mold structure would need to comprise an inner mold surface of each sidewall shell is shaped to form a circumferentially continuous flat surface portion of a sidewall radially inward of a mold partition and a further sidewall portion that merges tangentially with the flat surface portion and is curved outward in radial section. Such a tire has improved carcass structure and upper sidewalls capable of reducing weight without decreasing resistance to carcass damage (Col. 1 lines 6-9, 27-31). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Ogihara in order to provide the inner mold surface of each sidewall shell is shaped to form a circumferentially continuous flat surface portion of the sidewall radially inward of the mold partition and a further sidewall portion that merges tangentially with the flat surface portion and is curved outward in radial section so as to provide a tire having the advantages discussed above as is generally known in the similar art, as taught by Takada.
The examiner notes that the claim limitation “the further sidewall portion is configured to form a thin extra material layer on the tire having a thickness of 0.50 mm to 1.50 mm” is very broad and does not expressly require what the material is, or provide a structure for the mold that would differentiate between different materials and layers. Accordingly, any layer of any material, including the same sidewall material, on the tire sidewall having a thickness of 0.50 mm to 1.50 mm is considered to satisfy the claim limitation, which will necessarily be present in the tire produced by the mold of Ogihara.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watanabe (US 20220134696) discloses a vulcanizing mold for vulcanizing a pneumatic vehicle tire (Fig. 1), the mold comprising: a number of segments (Fig. 1: 13) of a segment ring that are arranged for forming a tread with shoulder flanks, also with sidewall shells (Fig. 1: 11, 11A, 11B) for forming sidewalls and with mold partitions (Figs. 1-3) between the segments and the sidewall shells, wherein, with the mold closed, the sidewall shells (Figs. 1-3: 11) are in contact with the segments (Figs. 1-3: 13) of the segment ring at the mold partitions, wherein respectively formed at the end on the inner side of the mold, along the mold partition, is a circumferential depression (Figs. 2-3), which is delimited by two depression flanks (Figs. 2-3: 110, 130), one of which is formed on the segments (Figs. 2-3: 13) and the other of which is formed on the sidewall shell (Figs. 2-3: 11), and wherein, around the region of the mold partitions, the mold inner sides are in line with one another (Fig. 2: B), interrupted by the depressions (Figs. 1-3), wherein the depression flanks of the depressions are curved outward in radial section, in the form of a circular arc (Fig. 3: Rt, Rs). While Watanabe does not expressly recite that the number of segments of the segment ring are arranged movably in the radial direction, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized, or alternatively found obvious, that the segments (Fig. 1: 13) abutting against the sidewall shells (Fig. 1: 11) would need to be provided with radial movement in and out to open and close the mold.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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 on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights