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
Figures 1-3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “72” in Figure 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a lower bead ring” in line 17 should be written as –the lower bead ring— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a lower side bead groove” in line 19 should be written as –the lower side bead groove— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a lower bead ring” in line 19 should be written as –the lower bead ring— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a lower surface” in line 20 should be written as –the lower surface— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a lower bead ring” in line 26 should be written as –the lower bead ring— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an upper end” in line 30 should be written as –the upper end— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an upper side bead” in line 31 should be written as –the upper side bead— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a lower surface” in line 37 should be written as –the lower surface— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an upper bead ring” in line 39 should be written as –the upper bead ring— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an upper surface” in line 40 should be written as –the upper surface— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an upper bead ring” in line 41 should be written as –the upper bead ring— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an upper surface” in lines 41-42 should be written as –the upper surface— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an upper end” in line 46 should be written as –the upper end— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a post coupling container” in line 49 should be written as –the post coupling container— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an inner peripheral surface” in lines 2-3 should be written as –the inner peripheral surface— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a middle part” in line 3 should be written as –the middle part— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “when” in line 4 should be written as –and wherein— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an inner peripheral surface” in lines 2-3 should be written as –the inner peripheral surface— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an upper part” in line 3 should be written as –the upper part— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “when” in line 4 should be written as –and wherein— for grammatical clarity. 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 1-3 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 phrases “the diameter” in line 17 and “the diameter” in line 39 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein the lower bead ring allows a lower surface of the lower side bead of the bladder to be fitted through a plurality of lower coupling holes” in lines 19-21 is unclear. The lower bead ring is disclosed as being screwed to the ring for coupling the lower bead ring, wherein the ring has a diameter smaller than the lower bead groove which holds the lower side bead of the bladder (i.e., they are not co-located). Thus, it is unclear how the lower bead ring fits the lower side of the bladder through a plurality of lower coupling holes when the lower bead ring is screwed and thus the screws must be fit through the lower coupling holes, not the lower side of the bladder. This is made more evident by Applicant’s Figures 4 and 5, wherein the grooves for the lower side of the bladder do not align with the coupling holes that are intended for the screws. Further clarification is requested. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes the lower bead ring allows screws used to be fitted through a plurality of lower coupling holes.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein the upper bead ring allows an upper surface of the upper side bead of the bladder to be fitted through a plurality of upper coupling holes” in lines 41-43 is unclear. The upper bead ring is disclosed as being screwed to the ring for coupling the upper bead ring, wherein the ring has a diameter smaller than the upper bead groove which holds the upper side bead of the bladder (i.e., they are not co-located). Thus, it is unclear how the upper bead ring fits the upper side of the bladder through a plurality of upper coupling holes when the upper bead ring is screwed and thus the screws must be fit through the upper coupling holes, not the upper side of the bladder. This is made more evident by Applicant’s Figures 4 and 6, wherein the grooves for the upper side of the bladder do not align with the coupling holes that are intended for the screws. Further clarification is requested. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes the upper bead ring allows screws used to be fitted through a plurality of upper coupling holes.
Claims 2-3 are indefinite by dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrases “the curvature” in line 2, “the diameter” in line 4, and “the diameter” in line 5 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what unit the curvature radius is measured by (i.e., 40 mm, 40 inches, etc.). For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes any unit of measure may be used.
Regarding claim 3, the phrases “the curvature” in line 2, “the diameter” in line 4, and “the diameter” in line 5 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what unit the curvature radius is measured by (i.e., 50 mm, 50 inches, etc.). For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes any unit of measure may be used.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 1020100052183, see machine translation) and any one of An (KR 101307357, see machine translation) and/or Byeon (KR 200473548, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a bladder assembly structure for detachably mounting a bladder to a tire vulcanization apparatus, comprising: a lower clamp, which fixes a lower side bead of the bladder (Fig. 1: 2) and to which a housing is mounted (See annotated Fig. 1); and an upper clamp, which fixes an upper side bead of the bladder and to which an upper end of a center post (Fig. 1: 3) passing through the housing is secured (See annotated Fig. 1); wherein the lower clamp comprises: a lower clamp ring, on which an upper surface of the lower side bead of the bladder is supported and to which the housing is coupled (See annotated Fig. 1); and, a lower bead ring, on which a lower surface of the lower side bead of the bladder is supported and which is coupled to the lower clamp ring to thereby allow the lower side bead of the bladder to be coupled thereto (See annotated Fig. 1); wherein the lower clamp ring comprises: a lower clamp panel in the shape of a circular plate; a lower side bead groove, which is formed as a concave groove in an edge area of a lower surface of the lower clamp panel (See annotated Fig. 1); a ring for coupling a lower bead ring, which is formed to protrude with the diameter smaller than that of the lower side bead groove on a lower surface of the lower clamp panel formed with a lower side bead groove and to which a lower bead ring is screwed (See annotated Fig. 1), wherein the lower bead ring allows a lower surface of the lower side bead of the bladder to be fitted through a plurality of lower coupling holes (See annotated Fig. 1: see where screws couple and thus must have corresponding coupling holes); a housing coupling container, which is formed with a predetermined thickness and a predetermined length, and to an inner peripheral surface of which the housing is secured (See annotated Fig. 1); and, a lower reinforcement part which is formed for reinforcement from an inner peripheral surface of the ring for coupling a lower bead ring to a middle part of the housing coupling container (See annotated Fig. 1), wherein the upper clamp comprises: an upper clamp ring, on which a lower surface of the upper side bead of the bladder is supported and to which an upper end of the center post (Fig. 1: 3) is coupled (See annotated Fig. 1); and an upper bead ring, which allows an upper side bead of the bladder to be coupled thereto, by means of an upper surface of the upper side bead of the bladder being supported and being coupled to the upper clamp ring (See annotated Fig. 1); and wherein the upper clamp ring comprises: an upper clamp panel in the shape of a circular plate (See annotated Fig. 1); an upper side bead groove, which is formed as a concave groove in an edge area of an upper surface of the upper clamp panel, and to which a lower surface of the upper side bead of the bladder is fitted (See annotated Fig. 1); a ring for coupling an upper bead ring, which protrudes with the diameter smaller than that of the upper bead groove on an upper surface of the upper clamp panel formed with an upper bead groove and, to which an upper bead ring is screwed (See annotated Fig. 1); a post coupling container, which is formed with a predetermined thickness and a predetermined length, and which allows an upper end of the center post (Fig. 1: 3) to be coupled to an inner peripheral surface thereof (See annotated Fig. 1); and an upper reinforcement part formed for reinforcement from an inner peripheral surface of the ring for coupling the upper bead ring to an upper end of a post coupling container (See annotated Fig. 1).
Kim does not expressly recite the material of the lower or upper clamp ring. However, it is generally known in the tire bladder assembly art to provide clamp rings made of aluminum material. For instance, An also discloses a clamp ring for a vulcanizing bladder wherein the clamp rings (Fig. 1: 3a, 3b) are made of a light metal material that can withstand high heat and pressure, such as aluminum material (Page 3 lines 15-16). Additionally or alternatively, Byeon also discloses a clamp ring for a vulcanizing bladder wherein the clamp rings are made of aluminum material for efficient heat transfer that also reduces cure time to prevent the bead part side wall against the phenomenon of complete cure, and for uses that require strength, corrosion resistance and wear resistance (Page 3 lines 5-10). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the lower and upper clamp rings of Kim so as to be aluminum material for the advantages as discussed above as taught by An and Byeon, and because Kim itself is silent as to the material of the clamp rings.
PNG
media_image1.png
1458
1431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that the claim limitations “to thereby allow an upper surface of the lower side bead of the bladder to be fitted thereto,” “which is formed for communication from an upper surface of a lower clamp panel to a lower surface,” “to thereby increase stiffness of the housing coupling container,” “wherein the upper bead ring allows an upper surface of the upper side bead of the bladder to be fitted through a plurality of upper coupling holes,” “which is formed for communication from a lower surface of the upper clamp panel to an upper panel thereof,” and “to thereby increase stiffness of a post coupling container” are all recitations of intended use that do not require any additional structure to the bladder assembly disclosed by modified Kim. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because modified Kim discloses a bladder assembly having the structural features as claimed which is capable of fulfilling each of the aforementioned intended uses.
Regarding claims 2-3, Kim further discloses the lower reinforcement part has the curvature from an inner peripheral surface of the ring for coupling the lower bead ring of the lower clamp panel to a middle part of the housing coupling container (See annotated Fig. 1 above in claim 1), and the upper reinforcement part has the curvature from an inner peripheral surface of the ring for coupling the upper bead ring of the upper clamp panel to an upper end part of the post coupling container (See annotated Fig. 1 above in claim 1).
While Kim does not expressly recite that the lower reinforcement part has the curvature of R40 or that the upper reinforcement part has the curvature of R50, 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 curvature radii. 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 curvature of the upper and lower reinforcement parts in view of stress distribution and load transfer. Similarly, while Kim does not explicitly disclose the value for a diameter of the lower clamp panel, housing coupling container, upper clamp panel, or post coupling container, 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 diameters. 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 diameter of the lower clamp panel, housing coupling container, upper clamp panel, and post coupling container in order to provide a bladder assembly for the desired size having sufficient support.
Moreover, it is well understood in the mechanical arts that radius affects stress concentration, fatigue life, load distribution, and structural stiffness. Accordingly, selecting an appropriate curvature radius to achieve desired structural performance would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art. Adjusting such radius values to balance stress reduction, spatial constraints, and manufacturability represents routine engineering optimization yielding predictable results. Similarly, the diameter of the clamp panels, housing container, and post container are structural dimensional parameters that affect interface fit, load transfer characteristics, clamping force distribution, and desired tire size. Selection of appropriate diameters to accommodate mating components and system constraints constitutes ordinary dimensional scaling and proportional adjustment. Case law holds that changes in size, proportion, and shape are matters of design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). Additionally, case law holds that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In this case, Kim discloses each of the claimed structural elements for the bladder assembly structure and thus the claimed bladder assembly structure having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the bladder assembly structure disclosed by Kim.
Furthermore, under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), where a design need or market pressure exists and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to purse known options within their technical grasp. Here, curvature radius and the aforementioned diameters are known adjustable parameters with predictable mechanical effects. Modifying Kim to include selected radii and diameters to optimize stress distribution and structural durability would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success.
The examiner notes the specification does not attribute any unexpected result or critical functional significance to the specific numerical values R40, R50, or the aforementioned diameters. In the absence of evidence of criticality or unexpected results, the claimed numerical limitations are considered obvious variations of known structural parameters.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE (née AYALP) 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 (née WHATLEY) 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