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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Feb. 05, 2026 has been entered. Claims 16 and 21-22 remain pending in the application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khomyakov et al. (SU459350, English translation provided) in view of Tatara et al. (US 2009/0249598), Laurent et al. (US 5,609,705), and Downing (US 2007/0122605).
Regarding claim 16, Khomyakov discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-2, a guiding and maintenance machine (as shown in Fig. 1) for positioning filaments (Fig. 1, item 7 (col. 2, line 16)) at a predetermined pitch (as shown in Fig. 2) during a calendering cycle that performs manufacture of plies (col. 1, lines 1-4) using the filaments, the guidance and maintenance machine comprising:
a cylinder group that includes a group of guide rollers with an upper guide roller and a lower guide roller (e.g., Fig. 1, items 5, 6 (col. 2, lines 2-6)), each guide roller having a predetermined diameter and a longitudinal axis about which the respective guide roller rotates, each guide roller also having a plurality of circumferential grooves (Fig. 2, item a (col. 2, line 5)) defined on a respective circumferential surface (as shown in Fig. 2) in correspondence with the number of filaments (i.e., item 7 as shown in Fig. 2) to be aligned during a guiding and maintenance process,
at least one preparation comb (Fig. 1, items 3, 4 (col. 2, line 1)) provided in correspondence with each guide roller,
so that the preparation combs accompany the filaments from a corresponding supply creel (Fig. 1, item 8 (col. 2, line 17)) to the guide rollers at a predetermined pitch positioning outside the guide rollers,
the teeth of a preparation comb attributed to the upper guide roller being positioned at a predetermined pitch in correspondence with the grooves of the upper guide roller, and the teeth of a comb attributed to the lower guide roller being positioned at a predetermined pitch in correspondence with the grooves of the lower guide roller (as shown in Fig. 1).
Khomyakov discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1 (also see labels in attached annotated Figure II), comprising a pair of preparation combs (i.e., the pairs of combs 3 and 4 in attached annotated Figure II) attributed to each of the upper guide roller (see label of upper guide roller in attached annotated Figure II) and the lower guide roller (see label of lower guide roller in attached annotated Figure II), each pair of preparation combs comprising at least one comb and at least another comb (as shown in Fig. 1) mounted in alignment with a corresponding preparation zone in such a way that the teeth of the comb and the teeth of another comb are aligned to allow the passage of the filaments through the pair of the combs. Khomyakov discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, each mobile comb is positioned between the corresponding preparation zone and a corresponding guide roller such that the pitches between the teeth of each comb are aligned with grooves corresponding to the guide rollers (as shown in Figs. 1-2) and the combs are installed either tangentially or perpendicularly to a corresponding circumferential surface.
In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732,93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) The fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.
Khomyakov discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly disclose either the comb is fixed or movable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Khomyakov, since it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to move one of the pair of combs in order to adjust the operation of the alignment of the threads.
Khomyakov discloses that, depending on the density of the threads (i.e., the filaments) in the fabric, one, two or more rollers can be installed, and the pitch of the annular grooves will increase accordingly (col. 2, lines 8-11).
However, Khomyakov does not disclose an application roller corresponding to the guide roller. In the same field of endeavor, cord aligning calendar and the mobile comb is returned to the corresponding preparation zone after an end of a calendaring cycle, Tatara discloses that, the cylinder group also comprising an application roller (e.g., item 55 in Fig. 3 (a grooved press roll ([0030], line 1))) having a predetermined diameter and a longitudinal axis about which the application roller rotates, the application roller having a plurality of circumferential grooves (Fig. 4, item 55a ([0030], lines 1-8)) defined on a circumferential surface (as shown in Fig. 4) of the application roller in correspondence with the cumulative number of grooves (Fig. 4, item 56a ([0030], lines 1-8)) of the guide rollers (e.g., item 56 in Fig. 3 (a groove comb roll ([0030], line 4))); and
Tatara discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 3, 7, each guide roller (e.g., item 56 in Fig. 3 (a groove comb roll ([0030], line 4))) is movable (i.e., driven by the cylinder device 58 ([0035])) relative to the application roller (e.g., item 55 in Fig. 3 (a grooved press roll ([0030], line 1))) between an open position (as shown in Fig. 3), in which the filaments (item C in Fig. 3 ([0028], line 11)) are introduced into the guide rollers, and a closed position (as shown in Fig. 7), in which each guide roller approaches the application roller to capture the filaments between the respective grooves (Fig. 4, item 56a ([0030], lines 1-8)) of the guide rollers and the grooves (Fig. 4, item 55a ([0030], lines 1-8)) of the application roller.
It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, Tatara discloses that, the movable comb 56 (i.e., from one location to another as shown in Fig. 3) at least at one position is directly/tangentially contacted with the application roller 55 (i.e., from one location (i.e., the original alignment transfer position P2) to another (i.e., the standby position P1) as shown in Fig. 3 ([0033], lines 1-8 from bottom)). Thus, Tatara discloses that, the mobile comb is capable of to be pulled concomitantly with the filament towards the upper guide roller or the lower guide roller then returned to the corresponding preparation zone after an end of a calendaring cycle ([0033]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khomyakov to incorporate the teachings of Tatara to provide a movable application roller and a movable guide roller at least tangentially corresponding to the guide/application roller from one position to another. Doing so would be possible to transfer an aligned state of the cords fitted into the grooves of the guide roller to the application/press roll as it is to fit the respective cords into grooves of the application roll, as recognized by Tatara (ABSTRACT).
However, Khomyakov does not disclose the detailed structures of the comb. In the same field of endeavor, cord reinforcement, Laurent discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2 and 5-6, each preparation comb (as shown in Figs. 5-6 (i.e., the comb B (col. 3, lines 16-27)) comprising a support having a predetermined length between two opposite ends and a predetermined width between a front surface and a top surface from which a plurality of teeth (i.e., item 30 (col. 3, line 18)) extend, the teeth having a predetermined uniform height and being parallel to each other along the length of the support.
The claimed the comb including its detailed structures is that the substitution of one known element for another is prima facie obvious IF it yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, something to do with the comb including a support having a predetermined length between two opposite ends and a predetermined width between a front surface and a top surface from which a plurality of teeth extend, the teeth having a predetermined uniform height and being parallel to each other along the length of the support comes from Laurent itself.
Khomyakov discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, a preparation zone (as shown in Fig. 1) associated with a corresponding supply creel (Fig. 1, item 8 (col. 2, line 17)), a preparation zone comprising a pair of preparation combs (Fig. 1, item 3) attributed to the upper guide roller (Fig. 1, item 5) and a preparation zone comprising a pair of preparation combs (Fig. 1, item 4) attributed to the lower guide roller (Fig. 1, item 6), each pair of preparation combs comprising at least one comb and at least another comb mounted in alignment with the corresponding preparation zone in such a way that the teeth of the combs are aligned to allow the passage of the filaments through the pair of preparation combs from a respective outlet of the supply creel to the guiding and maintenance machine (as shown in Fig. 1).
In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732,93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) The fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.
Khomyakov discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly disclose either the comb is fixed or movable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Khomyakov, since it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to move one of the pair of combs in order to adjust the operation of the alignment of the threads.
Khomyakov discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-2, considering to ensure uniform distribution of the steel cord when rubberizing a cord with a dense arrangement of threads, the annular grooves on the rollers 5, 6 are made with a pitch exceeding the pitch of the threads in the rubberized cord (col. 4, lines 6-8). It is noticed that, the pitch of threads exiting from either the comb 3 or 4 is also determined by the teeth of the related combs. Thus, for combining with the consideration of the diameter or size of each thread, the pitch of the comb 3 or 4 is a result effective variable.
Since one must always select the sizes, dimensions, and angles of features in the tire even if the reference does not provide any specifics.
As explained in MPEP § 2144.05 (II: Routine Optimization), one of ordinary skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed range/limitations (i.e., the pitch of the teeth of the comb is at least 0.7 mm and at most 1.4 mm) as a result of routine optimization of the result effective variable of providing uniform distribution of the steel cord when rubberizing a cord with a dense arrangement of threads for plies in the tire.
However, Khomyakov does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the single cord or filament. In the same field of endeavor, tire ply, Downing discloses that, a standard layer of ply typically has a cord spacing (or pitch) in the range of about 18 (i.e., 0.7 mm) to about 36 (i.e., 1.4 mm) epi (i.e., ends per inch), generally about 28 epi, and with cord diameters in the range of about 0.020 (or 0.5 mm) to about 0.04 (or 1.0 mm ) inches ([0035], lines 1-6) (overlapping the claimed range of diameter of cord/filament greater than 0.004 inches (or 0.1 mm) and the claimed range of pitch (or spacing) of the comb of at least 0.7 mm and at most 1.4 mm).
It is noticed that, as illustrated in Figs. 4, 10, a plurality of cords 415 are fed through the die inlet into engagement with the base gum layer mounted over the assembly roller 412. The die 410 maintains the desired cord spacing. Examples of dies which may be used with the system 400 are shown in Figs. 8-10 ([0040], lines 10-14).
Here, at least the die 410 plays a function of combing with the desired cord spacing/pitching. The grooves of the assembly roller have to match the diameter of each individual cord/filament (i.e., 0.020 (or 0.5 mm) to about 0.04 (or 1.0 mm) inches overlapping the claimed range of grooves of guide roller(s) having a width of at least 0.7 mm and at most 1.4 mm).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khomyakov to incorporate the teachings of Downing to provide the diameter of the single cord or filament is in the range of 0.020 (or 0.5 mm) to about 0.04 (or 1.0 mm). Doing so would be possible to have reduced weight, lower cost and the desired performance characteristics to the tire, as recognized by Downing ([0002]).
PNG
media_image1.png
416
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure II (based on Fig. 1 in the teachings of Khomyakov)
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khomyakov et al. (SU459350, English translation provided) in view of Tatara et al. (US 2009/0249598), Laurent et al. (US 5,609,705), and Downing (US 2007/0122605).
Regarding claim 21, Khomyakov discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, a calendering system (as shown in Fig. 1) for making reinforced rubber plies (col. 1, lines 1-4), the calendering system comprising:
the guiding and maintenance machine (as shown in Fig. 1) of claim 16 (see above);
at least one supply creel (Fig. 1, item 8 (col. 2, line 17)) that supports a plurality of spools (as shown in Fig. 1) held in uniform rows, each spool supporting a filament (Fig. 1, item 7 (col. 2, line 16)), each filament being fed from the spools to an outlet (as shown in Fig. 1) of the supply creel to the guiding and maintenance machine (as shown in Fig. 1); and
a calendering machine comprising a calender roll (Fig. 1, item 9 (col. 2, line 20)) upon which at least one rubber ply (as shown in Fig. 1) is arranged to form a ply or plies with the filaments aligned and parallel to each other with a predetermined density.
Regarding claim 22, Khomyakov discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, a preparation zone (as shown in Fig. 1) associated with a corresponding supply creel (Fig. 1, item 8 (col. 2, line 17)), a preparation zone comprising a pair of preparation combs (Fig. 1, item 3) attributed to the upper guide roller (Fig. 1, item 5) and a preparation zone comprising a pair of preparation combs (Fig. 1, item 4) attributed to the lower guide roller (Fig. 1, item 6), each pair of preparation combs comprising at least one comb and at least another comb mounted in alignment with the corresponding preparation zone in such a way that the teeth of the combs are aligned to allow the passage of the filaments through the pair of preparation combs from a respective outlet of the supply creel to the guiding and maintenance machine (as shown in Fig. 1).
In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732,93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) The fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.
Khomyakov discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly disclose either the comb is fixed or movable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Khomyakov, since it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to move one of the pair of combs in order to adjust the operation of the alignment of the threads.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments in claim 16 that the diameter and/or the spacing of the cords in the ply of the reference Downing cannot render obvious the pitch of the grooves of the guide roller of the instant application, it is not persuasive.
The base reference Khomyakov discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-2, considering to ensure uniform distribution of the steel cord when rubberizing a cord with a dense arrangement of threads, the annular grooves on the rollers 5, 6 are made with a pitch exceeding the pitch of the threads in the rubberized cord (col. 4, lines 6-8). It is noticed that, the pitch of threads exiting from either the comb 3 or 4 is also determined by the teeth of the related combs. Thus, for combining with the consideration of the diameter or size of each thread, the pitch of the comb 3 or 4 is a result effective variable.
Since one must always select the sizes, dimensions, and angles of features in the tire even if the reference does not provide any specifics.
As explained in MPEP § 2144.05 (II: Routine Optimization), one of ordinary skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed range/limitations (i.e., the pitch of the teeth of the comb is at least 0.7 mm and at most 1.4 mm) as a result of routine optimization of the result effective variable of providing uniform distribution of the steel cord when rubberizing a cord with a dense arrangement of threads for plies in the tire.
Further, the reference Downing discloses that, a standard layer of ply typically has a cord spacing (or pitch) in the range of about 18 (i.e., 0.7 mm) to about 36 (i.e., 1.4 mm) epi (i.e., ends per inch), generally about 28 epi, and with cord diameters in the range of about 0.020 (or 0.5 mm) to about 0.04 (or 1.0 mm) inches ([0035], lines 1-6) (overlapping the claimed range of diameter of cord/filament greater than 0.004 inches (or 0.1 mm) and the claimed range of pitch (or spacing) of the comb of at least 0.7 mm and at most 1.4 mm).
In the teachings of Downing, it is noticed that, as illustrated in Figs. 4, 10, a plurality of cords 415 are fed through the die inlet into engagement with the base gum layer mounted over the assembly roller 412. The die 410 maintains the desired cord spacing. Examples of dies which may be used with the system 400 are shown in Figs. 8-10 ([0040], lines 10-14).
Basically, Downing explicitly discloses the claimed pitch of grooves of the guide roller in the range of 0.7 mm to 1.4 mm.
It is also noticed that, where and how to apply the die 410 (i.e., as a guide roller) is an intended use of the apparatus which is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights