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 .
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 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cress et al. (US20110148001) (of record) in view of Gallego et al. (US20160136848) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Cress discloses a tire tread forming system, the system comprising:
a tire tread mold configured to receive uncured rubber (“first mold member” (12)); and
a tab system coupled to the tire tread mold, the tab system comprising:
a tab mold contiguous with the tire tread mold and including a tab recess therein (“demolding tool” (16) with “demolding cavity” (17), “connecting portion” (23)), the tab mold and the tire tread mold configured to form a pull-out tab contiguous with a tire tread ([0045] where the “connecting portion” (23) forms a “material-engaging portion of demolding tool 16”); and
a tab ejector that moves beneath the pull-out tab from an edge of the pull-out tab so as to eject a pull-out tab from the tab recess of the tab mold (“demolding tool” (16), [0042], [0045] where in such a configuration, the “connecting portion” (23) that forms a “material-engaging portion of demolding tool 16”).
While Cress does disclose that the tab ejector is able to move and impart “demolding forces” upon the molded material ([0028]), Cress does not explicitly disclose that the tab system comprises an actuator and that it is the actuator that causes the tab ejector to move. 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 Gallego, which is within the tire tread molding art, teaches that a demolding tool (“first member” (50)) can be connected and moved through the use of an actuator (“actuator” (72)). As it has been held that the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, one would have been motivated to incorporate the actuator of Gallego with Cress to achieve the predictable result of affecting movement of the demolding tool (16) of Cress (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Cress teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Gallego teaches that the actuator is a pneumatic device ([0019] via “powered cylinder”) and the system further comprises at least one actuator conduit, the at least one actuator conduit fluidly coupled to the actuator (Fig 4-6 via tubes on top of “actuator” (72)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cress teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Cress teaches that the tab ejector tapers to a tab ejector leading edge ([0053]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Cress teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Cress teaches that the tab recess is configured to receive uncured rubber ([0024]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Cress teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Cress teaches that the tab ejector comprises a tapered leading edge ([0053]), the tab mold and the tapered leading edge configured to define the pull-out tab, and the tapered leading edge positioned under the edge of the pull-out tab ([0042], [0045]).
Claim(s) 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cress et al. (US20110148001) (of record) and Gallego et al. (US20160136848) (of record) as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above and in further in view of Yamada et al. (US20100044898) (of record).
Regarding claim 2, modified Caress teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Caress does not explicitly teach that the system further comprises a controller communicably coupled to the actuator, the controller configured to send at least one activation signal to the actuator to thereby automate the ejection of the pull-out tab by the tab ejector, 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 Yamada, which is within the tire molding art, teaches that a molding apparatus can comprise of a controller (“controller” (210)) used monitor and operate the multiple moving components of the molding apparatus via sending signals ([0087-0089]). One would have been motivated to use the controller of Yamada for the predictable result of operating a molding apparatus (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cress et al. (US20110148001) (of record) and Gallego et al. (US20160136848) (of record) as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above and in further view of Roesgen et al. (EP1938939) (of record).
Regarding claim 7, modified Cress teaches all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. While Cress does not explicitly teach that the tab recess is coated with a non-stick coating, 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 Roesgen, which is within the tire molding art, teaches that the surface of a component used for molding tread patterns can be coated with silicone for the benefit of ensuring good release properties ([0009]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Cress teaches all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above. Additionally, Roesgen teaches that the non-stick coating is silicone ([0009]).
Claim(s) 16, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cress (US20110148001) (of record) in view of Yamada et al. (US20100044898) (of record).
Regarding claim 16, Cress discloses a system for forming and ejecting a pull-tab, the system comprising:
a tab mold configured to receive uncured rubber (“demolding tool” (16) with “demolding cavity” (17), “connecting portion” (23), [0024]); and
a tab ejector configured to move, facilitate ejection of the pull-out tab from the tab mold, and is configured to move beneath the pull-out tab from an edge of the pull-out tab when the pull-out tab is in the tab mold (“demolding tool” (16), [0042], [0045], [0053]).
While Cress does disclose that the tab ejector is able to move and impart “demolding forces” upon the molded material ([0028]), Cress does not explicitly disclose that the tab system comprises a controller that signals the movement of the tab ejector. 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 Yamada, which is within the tire molding art, teaches that a molding apparatus can comprise of a controller (“controller” (210)) used to monitor and operate the multiple moving components of the molding apparatus via sending signals ([0087-0089]) and one would have been motivated to use the controller of Yamada for the predictable result of operating a molding apparatus (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 17, modified Cress teaches all limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. Additionally, Cress teaches that the tab mold further includes a tab recess (“demolding cavity” (17) and “recess” (23a)).
Regarding claim 21, modified Cress teaches all limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. Additionally, Cress teaches that the tab ejector comprises a tapered leading edge ([0053]), the tab mold and the tapered leading edge configured to define the pull-out tab, and the tapered leading edge positioned under the edge of the pull-out tab ([0042], [0045]).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cress (US20110148001) (of record) and Yamada et al. (US20100044898) (of record) as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 as set forth above and in further view of Roesgen et al. (EP1938939) (of record).
Regarding claim 18, modified Cress teaches all limitations of claim 17 as set forth above. While Cress does not explicitly teach that the tab recess is coated with a non-stick coating, 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 Roesgen, which is within the tire molding art, teaches that the surface of a component used for molding tread patterns can be coated with silicone for the benefit of ensuring good release properties ([0009]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Cress teaches all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. Additionally, Roesgen teaches that the non-stick coating is silicone ([0009]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 16 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.
With regards to applicant’s arguments on p.7 in that Gallego does not teach a tab ejector operably coupled to the actuator, examiner notes that Gallego is being relied upon in the rejection to teach that a demolding tool in general can be connected to and moved through the use of an actuator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sorimoto (US20220219365) (of record) discloses a mold tab ejector (“molding core” (191)) positioned below the molded product whose shape comprises a tapered leading edge (Fig 7-8).
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