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Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/29/2026.
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 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh (KR 20150098084, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses a system for forming a tire tread comprising: a tire tread mold including: a base (Figs. 1-2: 20; see also for example annotated Fig. 1 below); a first sidewall contiguous with the base (See for example annotated Fig. 1 below), the first sidewall including a first sidewall joint structure (See for example annotated Fig. 1 below); and a second sidewall contiguous with the base and positioned opposite of the first sidewall (See for example annotated Fig. 1 below); and a first sidewall height adjuster (Figs. 1-2: 30) including a first sidewall height adjuster joint structure (See for example annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein: a portion of the first sidewall height adjuster joint structure is configured to be positioned within a portion of the first sidewall joint structure such that the first sidewall and the first sidewall height adjuster are coupled (Figs. 1-2; see also for example annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
1009
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Oh further discloses a second sidewall height adjuster including a second sidewall height adjuster joint structure and wherein the second sidewall includes a second sidewall joint structure (See for example annotated Fig. 1 above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Oh further discloses a portion of the second sidewall height adjuster joint structure is configured to be positioned within a portion of the second sidewall joint structure such that the second sidewall and the second sidewall height adjuster are coupled (See for example annotated Fig. 1 above in claim 1).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 20150098084, see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 4-5, Oh further discloses the first sidewall height adjuster joint structure may be a bolt ([0034]). Case law holds that it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Oh so as to provide a pin as the attaching means.
Moreover, Oh further discloses the first sidewall joint structure is a recessed portion such that when the attaching means (i.e., pin) is coupled to the recessed portion (See for example annotated Fig. 1 above in claim 1), the first sidewall and the first sidewall height adjuster form a tight fit after being pushed together (i.e., an interference fit).
Regarding claims 7-8, while Oh does not expressly recite the first sidewall further includes a first sidewall second joint structure positioned on the first sidewall at a distance from the first sidewall joint structure or the second sidewall further includes a second sidewall second joint structure positioned on the second sidewall at a distance from the second sidewall joint structure, case law holds that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to merely duplicate the parts to improve attachment and bonding of parts.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 20150098084, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses a system for forming a tire tread comprising: a tire tread mold including: a base (Figs. 1-2: 20; see also for example annotated Fig. 1 below); a first sidewall contiguous with the base (See for example annotated Fig. 1 below), the first sidewall including a first sidewall joint structure (See for example annotated Fig. 1 below); and a second sidewall contiguous with the base and positioned opposite of the first sidewall (See for example annotated Fig. 1 below); and a first sidewall height adjuster (Figs. 1-2: 30) including a first sidewall height adjuster joint structure (See for example annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein: a portion of the first sidewall height adjuster joint structure is configured to receive a portion of the first sidewall joint structure such that the first sidewall and the first sidewall height adjuster are coupled (See for example annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
651
1000
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Oh further discloses a second sidewall height adjuster including a second sidewall height adjuster joint structure and wherein the second sidewall includes a second sidewall joint structure (see for example annotated Fig. 1 above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Oh further discloses a portion of the second sidewall height adjuster joint structure is configured to receive a portion of the second sidewall joint structure such that the second sidewall and the second sidewall height adjuster are coupled (see for example annotated Fig. 1 above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Oh further discloses the first sidewall joint structure is a protrusion extending from a top surface of the first sidewall (see for example annotated Fig. 1 above in claim 1).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 20150098084, see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 7-8, while Oh does not expressly recite the first sidewall further includes a first sidewall second joint structure positioned on the first sidewall at a distance from the first sidewall joint structure or the second sidewall further includes a second sidewall second joint structure positioned on the second sidewall at a distance from the second sidewall joint structure, case law holds that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to merely duplicate the parts to improve attachment and bonding of parts.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Triantafyllis (US 5906835).
Regarding claim 1, Triantafyllis discloses a system for forming a tire tread (Figs. 4, 6: 14) comprising: a tire tread mold including: a base (Figs. 3, 5: 24); a first sidewall contiguous with the base (See for example annotated Fig. 3 below), the first sidewall including a first sidewall joint structure (See for example annotated Fig. 3 below); and a second sidewall contiguous with the base and positioned opposite of the first sidewall (See for example annotated Fig. 3 below); and a first sidewall height adjuster (Fig. 3: 28a; Fig. 5: 28b; see also for example annotated Fig. 3 below) including a first sidewall height adjuster joint structure (Figs. 3, 5: 34; see also for example annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein: a portion of the first sidewall height adjuster joint structure (Figs. 3, 5: 34; see also for example annotated Fig. 3 below) is configured to be positioned within a portion of the first sidewall joint structure (See for example annotated Fig. 3 below) such that the first sidewall and the first sidewall height adjuster are coupled (Figs. 3, 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
550
1019
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that the claim limitations “first sidewall” and “second sidewall” are broad and do not further define a structure or boundaries for the sidewalls other than to recite that they are contiguous with the base and on opposite sides of each other from the base. The sidewalls disclosed by Triantafyllis are considered to satisfy the current claim limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Triantafyllis further discloses a second sidewall height adjuster (Fig. 3: 30a; Fig. 5: 30b; see also for example annotated Fig. 3 above in claim 1) including a second sidewall height adjuster joint structure (Figs. 3, 5: 34; see also for example annotated Fig. 3 above in claim 1) and wherein the second sidewall includes a second sidewall joint structure (See for example annotated Fig. 3 above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Triantafyllis further discloses a portion of the second sidewall height adjuster joint structure (Figs. 3, 5: 34; see also for example annotated Fig. 3 above in claim 1) is configured to be positioned within a portion of the second sidewall joint structure (See for example annotated Fig. 3 above in claim 1) such that the second sidewall and the second sidewall height adjuster are coupled (Figs. 3, 5).
Regarding claim 7, Triantafyllis further discloses the first sidewall further includes a first sidewall second joint structure positioned on the first sidewall at a distance from the first sidewall joint structure (Figs. 3, 5: see how there are two components 34 at each sidewall and thereby two corresponding, respective recesses for each side).
Regarding claim 8, Triantafyllis further discloses the second sidewall further includes a second sidewall second joint structure positioned on the second sidewall at a distance from the second sidewall joint structure (Figs. 3, 5: see how there are two components 34 at each sidewall and thereby two corresponding, respective recesses for each side).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triantafyllis (US 5906835) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 4-5, Triantafyllis further discloses the first sidewall height adjuster joint structure is a screw (Col. 2 line 58) but also discloses that while screws are the preferred attaching means, other suitable attaching means such as adhesives, bolts, spring-loaded mechanical devices, etc. that rely on sound engineering judgement may be used (Col. 2 lines 59-61). Case law holds that it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Triantafyllis so as to provide a pin as the attaching means.
Moreover, Triantafyllis further discloses the first sidewall joint structure is a recessed portion such that when the attaching means (i.e., pin) is coupled to the recessed portion (See for example annotated Fig. 3 above in claim 1), the first sidewall and the first sidewall height adjuster form a tight fit after being pushed together (i.e., an interference fit).
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