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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show six pattern puzzle pieces and six middle puzzle pieces as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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.
Claims 11-12 are 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 negative limitations recited in claims 11-12 do not have support in the originally filed specification or in the figures. In particular, there is no support for a surface portion of the pattern segment forming a surface of the tire curing mold that does not comprise hollow portions, for a surface portions of the inner plate forming a surface of the tire curing mold that does not comprise hollow portions, or for an assembly portion of the inner plate to be assembled with another mold that does not comprises hollow portions. There is also no support for the limitations “an assembly portion of the pattern segment to be assembled with another mold does not comprise hollow portions” and "an assembly portion of the inner plate to be assembled with another mold does not comprise hollow portions.” Moreover, the examiner notes that in Figure 5, the inner plate does comprise holes (i.e., hollow portions) on the surface. Additionally, the pattern pieces also comprise holes (i.e., hollow portions) for receiving fastening members on a surface as well as grooved recesses on the other surface in Figure 2. Furthermore, the assembly portions also have holes for fastening. The examiner suggests Applicant claim the subject matter in a different way to avoid including negative limitations and including new matter that is not supported by the original disclosure and is contradicted by the original disclosure.
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 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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stevens (US 5494551) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Stevens discloses a tread mold formed for use in a curing process for a green tire, the tread mold comprising a plurality of sectors (Figs. 1, 8, 9), each of which comprises: a pattern segment (Figs. 1-12: 16) comprising a pattern surface disposed to face the green tire during the curing process; a single back segment (Figs. 1-8: 52, 62; Figs. 10-12: 72, 78) disposed outside the pattern segment; and a middle segment (Figs. 1-8: 26, 36) arranged between the pattern segment and the single back segment, wherein the pattern segment comprises a plurality of pattern puzzle pieces (Figs. 1-12: 16), and the middle segment comprises a plurality of middle puzzle pieces (Figs. 1-8: 26, 36), and wherein the plurality of middle puzzle pieces (Figs. 1-8: 26, 36) and the plurality of pattern puzzle pieces (Figs. 1-12: 16) are disposed to be superposed on the single back segment (Figs. 1-8: 52, 62; Figs. 10-12: 72, 78).
The examiner notes that the claim language is broad and does not expressly recite the structure for the single back segment, and thus the combination of components making up the back segment of Stevens is considered to satisfy the claim language. Moreover, the claim limitation “puzzle piece” is very broad and does not expressly recite a particular structure for the pieces. Accordingly, the ordinary meaning of the term, pieces that fit together are considered to be “puzzle pieces.” Stevens discloses segments that abut and fit together to form the annular tread mold, and thereby Stevens is considered to satisfy the claim language.
Regarding claim 2, Stevens further discloses the single back segment (Figs. 1-8: 52, 62; Figs. 10-12: 72, 78), the middle segment (Figs. 1-8: 26, 36), and the pattern segment (Figs. 1-12: 16) are attachable to and detachable from each other (Figs. 1-12: see how all components are fastened with fasteners 24 and thereby are necessarily attachable to and detachable from each other).
Regarding claim 3, Stevens further discloses the pattern segment (Figs. 1-12: 16) comprises a coupling surface (Fig. 3: 34) formed on a surface opposite to the pattern surface (Figs. 1-8: 18, 20, 22) of the pattern segment, and the middle segment (Figs. 1-8: 26, 36) comprises an inner surface on a surface facing the pattern segment, and wherein the coupling surface and the inner surface of the middle segment have shapes corresponding to each other (Figs. 1-8 and 10-12).
Regarding claim 4, Stevens further discloses the middle segment (Figs. 1-8: 26, 36) comprises an outer surface formed on a surface opposite to the inner surface, and the single back segment (Figs. 1-8: 52, 62; Figs. 10-12: 72, 78) comprises a fastening surface on a surface facing the middle segment (Figs. 1-2, 4-12), and wherein the outer surface and the fastening surface have shapes corresponding to each other (Figs. 1-2, 4-12).
Regarding claim 5, Stevens further discloses the pattern surface (Figs. 1-12: 18, 20, 22) of the pattern segment (Figs. 16) comprises a curved surface shape corresponding to the green tire along a circumferential direction of the green tire, and the fastening surface comprises a flat surface shape (Figs. 1-2 and 4-8: 52, 62; Figs. 10-12: 72, 78: see how surfaces of 52, 72 facing middle segments 26, 36 are flat).
Regarding claim 6, Stevens further discloses a pair of middle segments (Figs. 1-8: 26, 36) coupled to a pair of pattern segments (Figs. 1-8: 16) are coupled to correspond to a piece of the single back segment (Figs. 1-2 and 4-8: 52, 62; Figs. 10-12: 72, 78).
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harashima (JP 2005028672, see machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Harashima discloses a tread mold formed for use in a curing process for a green tire, the tread mold comprising a plurality of sectors, each of which comprises: a pattern segment (Fig. 1: 5) comprising a pattern surface disposed to face the green tire during the curing process; a single back segment (Fig. 1: 7) disposed outside the pattern segment; and a middle segment (Fig. 1: 6, 8) arranged between the pattern segment and the single back segment, wherein the pattern segment comprises a plurality of pattern puzzle pieces ([0011]), and the middle segment comprises a plurality of middle puzzle pieces ([0011]), and wherein the plurality of middle puzzle pieces and the plurality of pattern puzzle pieces are disposed to be superposed on the single back segment (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Harashima further discloses the pattern segment (Fig. 1: 5) comprises a coupling surface formed on a surface opposite to the pattern surface (Fig. 1: 5a) of the pattern segment, and the middle segment (Fig. 1: 6, 8) comprises an inner surface on a surface facing the pattern segment, and wherein the coupling surface and the inner surface of the middle segment have shapes corresponding to each other (Fig. 1: see interface of surfaces between 5 and 8).
Regarding claim 8, Harashima discloses a tire curing mold formed to perform a curing process for a green tire, the tire curing mold comprising: a tread mold (Fig. 1: 5) disposed to face one surface of the green tire during the curing process; a first side mold (Fig. 1: 1) disposed on one side of the tread mold; and a second side mold (Fig. 1: 2) disposed on another side of the tread mold to face the first side mold, wherein the tread mold comprises a plurality of sectors, each of which comprises: a pattern segment (Fig. 1: 5) comprising a pattern surface disposed to face the green tire during the curing process; a single back segment (Fig. 1: 7) disposed outside the pattern segment; and a middle segment (Fig. 1: 6, 8) arranged between the pattern segment and the single back segment, wherein the pattern segment comprises a plurality of pattern puzzle pieces ([0011]), and the middle segment comprises a plurality of middle puzzle pieces ([0011]), and wherein the plurality of middle puzzle pieces and the plurality of pattern puzzle pieces are disposed to be superposed on the single back segment (Fig. 1).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 5494551) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, while Stevens does not explicitly disclose the value for the number of pattern puzzle pieces and middle puzzle pieces, 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 said numbers of puzzle pieces. 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 number of pattern and middle puzzle pieces in order to obtain the desired mold tread pattern.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harashima (JP 2005028672, see machine translation) (of record) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of optionally Moris-Herbeauval et al. (US 5585064).
Regarding claim 2, Harashima further discloses the single back segment (Fig. 1: 7), the middle segment (Fig. 1: 6, 8), and the pattern segment (Fig. 1: 5) are attachable to and detachable from each other (Fig. 1: 9a, 9b, 11b) ([0011]-[0012]: wherein 7 is slidably engaged with 6 and thereby may be attached/detached).
Moris-Herbeauval discloses a similar tire curing mold, wherein the slidable engagement of the parts may be attached and/or detached (Figs. 5-10). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Harashima in order to provide the slidable engagement of the parts may be attached and/or detached as is a generally known in the substantially similar art, as taught by Moris-Herbeauval.
Claim(s) 4-5, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harashima (JP 2005028672, see machine translation) (of record) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Otake (JP 2009214501, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Harashima further discloses the middle segment (Fig. 1: 6, 8) comprises an outer surface formed on a surface opposite to the inner surface, and the single back segment (Fig. 1: 7) comprises a surface on a surface facing the middle segment, and wherein the outer surface and the surface have shapes corresponding to each other (Fig. 1: see interface of surfaces between 6, 8 and 7).
Otake also discloses a tire curing mold wherein a single back segment (Figs. 1, 3-7: 30) engages with rails (Figs. 1, 3-7: 28) for middle segments (Figs. 1, 3-7: 20) ([0029]). In other words, it is known in such a slidable structure in the art to provide a rail (i.e., fastening surface). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Harashima in order to provide the surface of the single back segment as a fastening surface, as is known in the substantially similar art as taught by Otake.
Regarding claim 5, Harashima further discloses the pattern surface of the pattern segment (Figs. 1-4: 5) comprises a curved surface shape corresponding to the green tire along a circumferential direction of the green tire, and the fastening surface comprises a flat surface shape (Fig. 1: see flat surface shape between 7 and 6).
Regarding claim 9, Otake further discloses a first side mold comprises: a base plate (Figs. 1, 4-7: 24) coupled (Fig. 1: via 27) to a container (Figs. 1, 4-7: 32, 34) of a curing machine during the curing process; and an inner plate (Figs. 1, 4-7: 16) coupled to the base plate (Figs. 1, 4-7: 24) to form a profile of a sidewall section of a tire.
Regarding claim 12, Harashima further discloses the pattern segment comprises a plurality of hollow portions (Fig. 1: 12) and support portions therein ([0014]-[0018]: wherein the vent holes 12 are hollow portions within the pattern segment, and the remaining solid portions of the pattern segment are support portions).
Otake further discloses a surface portion of the inner plate (Figs. 1, 4-7: 16) that forms a surface of the tire curing mold does not comprise hollow portions.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harashima (JP 2005028672, see machine translation) (of record) and Otake (JP 2009214501, see machine translation) as applied to claims 8-9 above, and further in view of Sehm et al. (US 20130099419) (of record).
Regarding claim 10-11, Harashima does not expressly recite the base plate and the inner plate are attachable to and detachable from each other.
Sehm discloses a curing mold formed to perform a curing process for a green tire comprising: a tread mold (Figs. 5-6: 350) disposed to face one surface of the green tire during the curing process; a first side mold (Figs. 5-6: 330) disposed on one side of the tread mold; and a second side mold (Fig. 5-6: 340) disposed on another side of the tread mold to face the first side mold. Sehm further discloses the first or second side mold comprises: a base plate (Figs. 5-6: 310) coupled to a container of a curing machine during the curing process (Fig. 5-6: see top plate of container bolted to 310); and an inner plate (Figs. 5-6: 330 or 340) coupled (Figs. 5-6: 391, 392) to the base plate (Figs. 5-6: 310) to form a profile of a sidewall section of a tire (Figs. 5-6: 346, 336) ([0038]-[0046]). Sehm further discloses the base plate (Figs. 5-6: 310) and the inner plate (Figs. 5-6: 330 or 340) are attachable to and detachable from each other (Figs. 5-6: see 391, 392) ([0041]). This allows for the sidewall mold plates to be removable and interchangeable ([0041]-[0042], [0044], [0047]). It is thereby also possible to change information on a sidewall mold plate without loss of mold dimension ([0047]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the base plate and the inner plate of Harashima in order to provide the base plate and the inner plate are attachable to and detachable from each other as is generally known in the tire curing mold art for the advantages as discussed above, as taught by Sehm.
Sehm further discloses the inner plate (Figs. 5-6: 330 or 340) comprises a plurality of hollow portions and support portions therein (Fig. 5-6: see holes for receiving 391, 392 in plate 330, 340 that are hollow portions, and the rest of the solid plate around the holes are support portions), wherein a surface portion of the pattern segment that forms a surface of the tire curing mold does not comprise hollow portions (Figs. 5-6: see how pattern segment does not comprise any hollow portions).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harashima (JP 2005028672, see machine translation) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, while Harashima does not explicitly disclose the value for the number of pattern puzzle pieces and middle puzzle pieces, 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 said numbers of puzzle pieces. 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 number of pattern and middle puzzle pieces in order to obtain the desired mold tread pattern.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 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.
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