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
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/13/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification appears to define “period” as “a spacing from the middle of one projection to the middle of an adjacent projection, or from peak to peak” ([0046]). However, this value is considered to be a wavelength, and not a period. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes Applicant has redefined “period” to function as the wavelength. However, for the purposes of clarity and convention, the examiner suggests Applicant correct the language.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a plurality of mold components each mold component” in line 2 should be written as –a plurality of mold components, each mold component— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a plurality of sipes-molding members” in line 12 should be written as –a plurality of sipe[[s]]-molding members— for grammatical clarity and consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the length” in line 15 should be written as –the sipe-molding member length— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “thin sipe molding portion” in line 20 should be written as –thin sipe-molding portion— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “is arranged includes” in line 22 should be written as –[[is arranged ]]includes— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “thick sipe molding portion” in lines 30-31 should be written as –thick sipe-molding portion— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “any of claim 1” in line 1 should be written as –[[any of ]]claim 1— for grammatical clarity and consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “thin portion” in line 1 should be written as –thin sipe-molding portion— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “thin portion” in line 1 should be written as –thin sipe-molding portion— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-7 and 16-20 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 1, the phrase “the mold component surface” in line 17 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “one or more of the opposing sides of the sipe-molding member thickness” in line 27 is unclear. It is unclear if the opposing sides are those of the previously disclosed sipe-molding member (not sipe-molding member thickness), or if it is referring to different opposing sides of a different part of the sipe-molding member (which then lacks sufficient antecedent basis). For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes either interpretation will satisfy the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 1, the phrases “the plurality of projections being spaced apart and each projection forming an undulation in the height direction of the sipe-molding member” in lines 23-25 and “the plurality of recesses being spaced apart and each recess forming an undulation in the height direction of the sipe-molding member” in lines 28-29 are unclear. It is unclear how the projections/recesses are spaced apart, but then they also form undulations, which implies they would touch in the height direction to form smooth peaks and valleys in a continuous wavelike manner. Are they only meant to be spaced apart in the width/lateral direction such that the protrusions/recesses are not touching adjacent ones and the undulations are intended to be smooth peaks and valleys in only the height direction? Are all protrusions/recesses spaced apart in all directions and undulations are just considered to be the peaks and valleys and not a continuous wavelike motion throughout? Are the projections positioned adjacent to recesses and thereby the projections are spaced apart from projections, the recesses are spaced apart from recesses, but together the projections and recesses form undulations? Further clarification is requested. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes any of the aforementioned interpretations will satisfy the claim limitations.
Claims 2-7 and 16-20 are indefinite by dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “the depressions” in line 3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Moreover, it is unclear if the depressions are the same as the recesses disclosed in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes they are the recesses for which there is antecedent basis.
Claims 16-20 are indefinite by dependence on claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the phrases “the sipe” in lines 2 and 3, as well as “the sipe height or sipe length” in line 3 are unclear as a sipe and its dimensions was not previously disclosed, and thereby said phrases lack sufficient antecedent basis. Instead, claim 1 discloses “a sipe-molding member” having “a sipe-molding member length” and “a sipe-molding member height.” For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes sipe-molding member was intended rather than sipe, for which there is antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “a period of 1.0 to 2.4 millimeters” in line 5 is unclear. “Period” is generally measured in units of time, not in units of length. In Applicant’s specification, Applicant appears to be defining “period” as “a spacing from the middle of one projection to the middle of an adjacent projection, or from peak to peak” ([0046]). However, this value is considered to be a wavelength, and not a period. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “period” in claim 3 is used by the claim to mean “a spacing from the middle of one projection to the middle of an adjacent projection, or from peak to peak,” while the accepted meaning is “the time it takes for one complete wave cycle to pass a fixed point.” For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes the period is intended to be a wavelength from peak to peak.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “the sipe thickness” in line 2 is unclear as a sipe and its dimensions was not previously disclosed, and thereby said phrases lack sufficient antecedent basis. Instead, claim 1 discloses “a sipe-molding member” having “a sipe-molding member thickness.” For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes sipe-molding member was intended rather than sipe, for which there is antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5, the phrases “the sipes” in line 1, as well as “the sipe length or sipe height” in line 3 are unclear as a sipe and its dimensions was not previously disclosed, and thereby said phrases lack sufficient antecedent basis. Instead, claim 1 discloses “a sipe-molding member” having “a sipe-molding member length” and “a sipe-molding member height.” For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes sipe-molding member was intended rather than sipe, for which there is antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5, the phrases “the opposing sides” in line 3 and “the tread” in lines 3-4 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 16, the phrases “the sipe” in lines 2 and 3, as well as “the sipe height or sipe length” in line 3 are unclear as a sipe and its dimensions was not previously disclosed, and thereby said phrases lack sufficient antecedent basis. Instead, claim 1 discloses “a sipe-molding member” having “a sipe-molding member length” and “a sipe-molding member height.” For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes sipe-molding member was intended rather than sipe, for which there is antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “a period of 1.0 to 2.4 millimeters” in line 5 is unclear. “Period” is generally measured in units of time, not in units of length. In Applicant’s specification, Applicant appears to be defining “period” as “a spacing from the middle of one projection to the middle of an adjacent projection, or from peak to peak” ([0046]). However, this value is considered to be a wavelength, and not a period. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “period” in claim 16 is used by the claim to mean “a spacing from the middle of one projection to the middle of an adjacent projection, or from peak to peak,” while the accepted meaning is “the time it takes for one complete wave cycle to pass a fixed point.” For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes the period is intended to be a wavelength from peak to peak.
Claims 17-20 are indefinite by dependence on claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “the sipe thickness” in line 2 is unclear as a sipe and its dimensions was not previously disclosed, and thereby said phrases lack sufficient antecedent basis. Instead, claim 1 discloses “a sipe-molding member” having “a sipe-molding member thickness.” For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes sipe-molding member was intended rather than sipe, for which there is antecedent basis.
Claims 18-20 are indefinite by dependence on claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the phrases “the sipes” in line 1, as well as “the sipe length or sipe height” in line 3 are unclear as a sipe and its dimensions was not previously disclosed, and thereby said phrases lack sufficient antecedent basis. Instead, claim 1 discloses “a sipe-molding member” having “a sipe-molding member length” and “a sipe-molding member height.” For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes sipe-molding member was intended rather than sipe, for which there is antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 18, the phrases “the opposing sides” in line 3 and “the tread” in lines 3-4 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 19-20 are indefinite by dependence on claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawson et al. (US 20180272637) and Tanaka (WO 2007017991, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lawson discloses a tire mold ([0041]), comprising: a plurality of sipe-molding members (Figs. 2-5) ([0033], [0039], [0041]) each having a sipe-molding member length (Figs. 2-4: L) extending at least partially in a direction of a mold component width (Figs. 2-4: L is provided in a mold to form 16 which are formed in mold width direction and thereby when positioned in the mold may have a length extending at least partially in a direction of a mold component width), a sipe-molding member height (Figs. 2-5: H) extending at least partially in a direction of the mold component thickness and perpendicular to the sipe-molding member length (Figs. 2-5), and a sipe-molding member thickness (Figs. 2-5: T), each sipe-molding member extending in the mold component thickness direction from a mold component surface (wherein the sipe-molding member is intended to form sipes on a tread surface and thereby must be provided so as to extend in the mold component thickness direction from a mold component surface), where each of the plurality of sipe-molding members each having a thick sipe-molding portion (Figs. 2-5: 22) having a thickness and a thin sipe-molding portion (Figs. 2-5: 24) located within the thick sipe-molding portion ([0033]), the thin sipe-molding portion having a thickness (Fig. 5: T24) which is less than the thickness of the thick sipe-molding portion (Fig. 5: T20, T22) ([0033]), where at least one of the opposing sides of the sipe-molding member includes a plurality of projections located on the thin sipe-molding portion, the plurality of projections being spaced apart and each projection forming an undulation in the height direction of the sipe-molding member (Figs. 2-4: see undulations formed by projections and recesses in 24) ([0023], [0033]), the undulation having an amplitude no greater than the thickness of the thick sipe-molding portion (Fig. 5: see how undulations in 24 have thickness T24 that is less than thickness T20, T22 of thick portions) ([0033]), where one or more of the opposing sides of the sipe-molding member thickness include a plurality of recesses (Figs. 2-4: see undulations formed by projections and recesses in 24) ([0023], [0033]), the plurality of recesses being spaced apart and each recess forming an undulation in the height direction of the sipe-molding member, the undulation having an amplitude no greater than the thickness of the thick sipe-molding portion (Fig. 5: see how undulations in 24 have thickness T24 that is less than thickness T20, T22 of thick portions) ([0033]).
While Lawson discloses a mold may be used in general ([0041]), it is does expressly recite the specific structure of the mold, such as: a plurality of mold components each mold component having: a mold component length extending in a lengthwise direction, the lengthwise direction being a circumferential direction when the mold components are arranged to form an assembled tire mold; a mold component width extending in a lateral direction, the lateral direction being perpendicular to the mold component lengthwise direction; a mold component thickness extending in a depthwise direction from an outer, tread forming surface of the mold, the depthwise direction being perpendicular to both the mold component lengthwise direction and the mold component widthwise direction.
Tanaka discloses a tire mold (Fig. 1: 10) comprising: a plurality of mold components (Figs. 1, 2a, 3b: 11) ([0006], [0016], [0021]), each mold component having: a mold component length extending in a lengthwise direction (Figs. 1, 2a, 3b), the lengthwise direction being a circumferential direction when the mold components are arranged to form an assembled tire mold; a mold component width extending in a lateral direction (Figs. 1, 2a, 3b), the lateral direction being perpendicular to the mold component lengthwise direction; a mold component thickness extending in a depthwise direction from an outer, tread forming surface of the mold, the depthwise direction being perpendicular to both the mold component lengthwise direction and the mold component widthwise direction (Figs. 1, 2a, 3b); and a plurality of sipe-molding members (Figs. 1, 2a, 3b:14) each having a sipe-molding member length extending at least partially in a direction of the mold component length or mold component width (Figs. 1, 2a, 3b), a sipe-molding member height extending at least partially in a direction of the mold component thickness and perpendicular to the sipe-molding member length (Figs. 1, 2a, 3b), and a sipe-molding member thickness (Figs. 1, 2a, 3b), each sipe-molding member extending in the mold component thickness direction from a mold component surface (Figs. 1, 2a, 3b). Tanaka further discloses that such vulcanization molds are conventional when vulcanizing tires ([0006]), wherein the blades (i.e., sipe-forming members) are typically cast into the mold during casting or installed afterwards ([0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide the mold of Lawson as one that is commonly known in the tire vulcanization mold art, such as the mold taught by Tanaka, in which to provide the sipe-forming members.
Regarding claim 2, Lawson further discloses the plurality of projections are arranged in rows (Figs. 2-4), where adjacent rows are shifted relative each other such that each projection in any row is arranged adjacent to one of the recesses in an adjacent row (Figs. 2-4: see how the undulations occur in the vertical and horizontal directions and thereby necessarily provide the claimed shifted structure) ([0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Lawson further discloses the same pattern of projections may be provided on the other side of the sipe-molding member (Fig. 5: see undulations of 24 on both sides of thickness). Moreover, case law holds that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to merely provide the same pattern on both sides of the sipe-molding member. Thereby, Lawson discloses the other of the opposing sides of the sipe-molding member thickness includes a plurality of projections, the plurality of projections being spaced apart and each having a height measuring no greater than the thick sipe-molding portion thickness.
Regarding claim 5, Lawson further discloses the undulations occur in the vertical (i.e., height) and horizontal (i.e., width) directions (Figs. 2-4) ([0033]). Thereby, for each of the plurality of sipe-molding members, the plurality of projections and the plurality of recesses are arranged in an alternating projection-recess arrangement along the sipe-molding member length and sipe-molding member height, such that opposing sides of a tread are arranged in a mating configuration (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Lawson further discloses the thick sipe-molding portion thickness is measured in the range of 0.4 mm up to 10 mm ([0025]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 mm to 0.9 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 thick sipe-molding portion thickness.
Regarding claim 7, Lawson further discloses the thin sipe-molding portion thickness (Fig. 5: T24) is measured in the range of 0.1 to 0.4 mm or less ([0025]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.15 mm to 0.4 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 thin sipe-molding portion thickness.
Claim(s) 3 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawson et al. (US 20180272637) and Tanaka (WO 2007017991, see machine translation) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and optionally further in view of Ohashi et al. (US 20100206447).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Lawson further discloses the projections and recesses are formed along the thickness of the sipe-molding member that is also undulating back and forth along a non-linear, undulating path as the sipe-molding member extends in the direction of the sipe-molding member height or sipe-molding member length, the non-linear, undulating path forming a plurality of undulations and having an amplitude (Fig. 5: T24) of no greater than the thick sipe-molding portion thickness (Fig. 5: T20, T22) (Figs. 2-4: see how the undulations occur in the vertical and horizontal directions and thereby necessarily provide the claimed shifted structure) ([0033]).
While Lawson does not explicitly disclose the value for a period of the plurality of undulations, 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 period. 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 period of the plurality of undulations in order to improve tread performance.
Optionally, it is generally known in the tire art that wave-shaped sipes (i.e., undulating sipes and their corresponding sipe-molding members) have particular “periods” for improved performance. For instance, Ohashi discloses sipes formed to have wavy (i.e., undulating) shapes, wherein the wavelength (i.e., period) is preferably 1.5 to 4 mm in order to obtain preferable performance of the sipe ([0023]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0 to 2.4 millimeter. 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 period of the undulations. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the undulations of Lawson to have the aforementioned “period” for the advantages discussed above, as taught by Ohashi.
Regarding claim 17, Lawson further discloses the same pattern of projections may be provided on the other side of the sipe-molding member (Fig. 5: see undulations of 24 on both sides of thickness). Moreover, case law holds that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to merely provide the same pattern on both sides of the sipe-molding member. Thereby, Lawson discloses the other of the opposing sides of the sipe-molding member thickness includes a plurality of projections, the plurality of projections being spaced apart and each having a height measuring no greater than the thick sipe-molding portion thickness.
Regarding claim 18, Lawson further discloses the undulations occur in the vertical (i.e., height) and horizontal (i.e., width) directions (Figs. 2-4) ([0033]). Thereby, for each of the plurality of sipe-molding members, the plurality of projections and the plurality of recesses are arranged in an alternating projection-recess arrangement along the sipe-molding member length and sipe-molding member height, such that opposing sides of a tread are arranged in a mating configuration (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Lawson further discloses the thick sipe-molding portion thickness is measured in the range of 0.4 mm up to 10 mm ([0025]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 mm to 0.9 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 thick sipe-molding portion thickness.
Regarding claim 20, Lawson further discloses the thin sipe-molding portion thickness (Fig. 5: T24) is measured in the range of 0.1 to 0.4 mm or less ([0025]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.15 mm to 0.4 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 thin sipe-molding portion thickness.
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