Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/645,929

PROCESS AND PLANT FOR BUILDING TYRES FOR VEHICLE WHEELS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 23, 2021
Examiner
BOOTH, ALEXANDER D
Art Unit
1749
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Pirelli Tyre S P A
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
101 granted / 183 resolved
-9.8% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
219
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.1%
+17.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
§112
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 183 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1 October 2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 52-73 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. Claim 52, recites the limitation of “the transfer and release of the first forming support occurs at the same time as the building of the structural component of the second tyre model on the second forming support in the second work station or the transfer and the release of the second forming support occurs at the same time as the building of the structural component of the first tyre model on the first forming support in the fourth work station” (underline added for emphasis). Even with the amended language of the first building step comprising “building the structural components of the first tyre model on the first forming support in a first work station and a fourth work station of the plurality of work stations”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, as while the first building step now has the first tyre model on the first forming support built in both the first work station and the fourth workstation, it is unclear as to how (or in what order) said first tyre model on said first forming support becomes associated with the fourth workstation. Put in a different perspective, the current claim language has a first building step of building a structure component of the first tyre model in the first work station, a first processing step of transferring the first tyre model from the first work station to the second work station and then the first building step of building a structural component of the first tyre model in the fourth work station, with no explanation as to how the first tyre model (along PNG media_image1.png 548 1612 media_image1.png Greyscale with the support) arrives there (visualized below). Similarly, it is unclear as to how the second tyre model on the second forming support arrives at the third work station, as there is no disclosure of a method involving transferring the second tyre model on the second forming support to the third work station. As claims 53-73 depend directly/indirectly on claim 52, they stand as rejected for similar reasons. For purposes of examination, the limitation in claim 52 will be interpreted as “the transfer and release of the first forming support holding the first tyre model from the first work station to the second work station occurs at the same time as the building of the structural component of the second tyre model on the second forming support 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. Claims 52-58 and 62-73 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Winkler et al. (DE102005055609, w/ US20080190562 as the English equivalent) (of record) in view of Caretta et al. (EP1150829) (of record). Regarding claim 52, Winkler discloses a process for manufacturing tyres for vehicle wheels, the tyres comprising at least two different models ([0007]), comprising the steps of: building at least a first and a second tyre model on respective first and second forming supports (“drums” (10), [0007]), by building each structural component of the first and second tyre models at a plurality of work stations (“stations”, Fig 5, 7), wherein the step of building at least the first and second tyre models comprises: a first building step of building the structural components of the first tyre model on the first forming support in a first work station (“station” (19), [0032]) and a fourth work station of the plurality of work stations (“parallel station” (1’b), [0028]-[0029]); a second building step of building the structural components of the second tyre model on the second forming support in at least a second work station (“parallel station” (1’a), [0028]-[0029]) and a third work station of the plurality of work stations (“station” (19), [0032], [0009], in that there can be an alternative “station” (19) to travel to); a first processing step of transferring and releasing the first forming support holding the first tyre model from the first work station of the plurality of work stations (“station” (19), [0032]) to the second work station of the plurality of work stations (“parallel station” (1’a), [0028]-[0029]), a second processing step of transferring and releasing the second forming support holding the second tyre model from the third work station of the plurality of work stations (“station” (19), [0032], [0009]) to the fourth work station of the plurality of work stations (“parallel station” (1’b), [0028]-[0029]), wherein the transfer and release of the first forming support from the first work station to the second work station occurs at the same time as the building of the structural component of the second tyre model on the second forming support or the transfer and the release of the second forming support holding the second tyre model from the third work station to the fourth work station occurs at the same time as the building of the structural component of the first tyre model on the first forming support ([0004]-[0005], [0007], [0010], [0029]); and wherein during the transfer of the first and second forming supports, the first and second forming supports follow different first and second paths, respectively ([0007]-[0009]). While Winkler does not explicitly disclose how the supports are transferred, specifically with a robotized arm of a transfer device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Caretta, which is within the tire manufacturing art, teaches that for a tire manufacturing process involving multiple work stations (“work stations” (4, 5, 6)), a robotized arm on a transfer device (“robotized arm” (16)) can be used for the purpose of “carrying out transfer of the toroidal support to other work stations” ([0065]). One would have been motivated to use the robotized arm as it is recognized as a means for transferring tire supports to different work stations. Regarding claim 53, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 52 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that the first work station is a first carcass structure building work station (Fig 7, [0032]) and the second work station is a first belt structure building work station (Fig 5, [0029]). Regarding claim 54, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 53 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that the third work station is a second carcass structure building work station (Fig 7, [0032]) and the fourth work station is a second belt structure building work station (Fig 5, [0029]). Regarding claim 55, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 52 as set forth above. While Winkler does not explicitly disclose that the step of building at least the first and second tyre models is preceded by a step of arranging a plurality of elementary components of the first and second tyre models at the plurality of work stations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Caretta teaches that the components of a tire can be manufactured with the use of a plurality of elementary components ([0044] via “elastomer strip”) at the plurality of work stations via extruders for the benefit of minimizing or eliminating the necessity of producing and stocking semi-finished products ([0008]-[0009]). Regarding claim 56, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 52 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that the step of building at least the first and second tyre models comprises, upstream of the first processing step, a step of selecting the second work station based on tyre model, on a structural component to be built, and on availability of the work stations ([0007]). Regarding claim 57, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 52 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that the step of building at least the first and second tyre models comprises, upstream of the first processing step, a step of selecting the fourth work station based on tyre model, on a structural component to be built, and on availability of the work stations ([0007]). Regarding claim 58, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 52 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that the step of building at least the first and second tyre models comprises the steps of building a carcass structure, the carcass structure comprising at least one carcass ply and a pair of annular anchoring structures ([0032]), building a belt structure, the belt structure comprising at least one belt layer ([0029]); and building a tread band ([0029]). Regarding claim 62, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 58 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that in the step of building the belt structure, the at least one belt layer comprises a layer of textile or metal cords oriented circumferentially at 0° (“belt bandage” and “station” (4), [0029]). Regarding claim 63, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 58 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that in the step of building the tread band comprises a step of applying a tread band in a position radially external to the belt structure (“tread cap”, [0029]). Regarding claim 64, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 52 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that the method comprises a step of applying at least one portion of sidewalls of the tyre model being processed in a position axially external to the tyre model being processed (at “station” (5’), [0029]). Regarding claim 65, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 58 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that the step of building the tread band comprises, prior to the step of applying the tread band, a step of applying at least one tread band underlayer in a position radially external to the belt structure ([0029] via “tread base”). Regarding claim 66, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 65 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that the step of building at least the first and second tyre models comprises a step of applying at least one portion of sidewalls of the tyre model being processed in a position axially external to the tyre model being processed ([0029] via “station” (5)). While Winkler does not explicitly teach that at least one of the step of applying the tread band, the step of applying the at least one tread band underlayer, or the step of applying the at least one portion of sidewalls is carried out by applying at least one continuous elongated element of elastomeric material according to side by side or at least partially overlapped coils, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Caretta teaches that the components of a tire, including, but not limited to, tread bands, sidewalls and other belt layers ([0065]), can be manufactured by applying at least one continuous elongated element of elastomeric material according to side by side or at least partially overlapped coils ([0013], [0018]) for the benefit of minimizing or eliminating the necessity of producing and stocking semi-finished products ([0008]-[0009]). Regarding claim 67, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 52 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that at least one structural component is built by assembling at least one elementary component ([0008]). Regarding claim 68, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 52 as set forth above. While Winkler does not explicitly teach that the method further comprises a pre-step of feeding elementary components to at least one work station, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Caretta teaches the components of a tire can be manufactured by applying at least one continuous elongated element of elastomeric material ([0013], [0018]) for the benefit of minimizing or eliminating the necessity of producing and stocking semi-finished products ([0008]-[0009]). Examiner notes that the application of the continuous elongated element of elastomeric material is being delivered via extruders ([0041], “extruder” (14)) and extruders require the feeding of elementary components to operate, the combined teachings of Winkler with Caretta meet the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 69, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 52 as set forth above. While Winkler does not explicitly disclose the shape of the drums, specifically that at least one of the first forming support and second forming support is a toroidal support, examiner takes Official Notice that the use of toroidal supports in tire manufacturing is well known, as evidenced by Caretta’s own use for toroidal supports (Fig 1, [0071]). Regarding claim 70, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 69 as set forth above. Additionally, examiner takes Official Notice that is well known in the tire manufacturing art for the toroidal support to have a radially external surface corresponding to a radially internal surface of the tyre being processed, as evidenced by Caretta’s own use of toroidal supports with specific surface structure ([0071]). Regarding claim 71, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 52 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that the first and second tyre models differ by size ([0007]-[0009]). Regarding claim 72, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 52 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that the first and second tyre models differ by structural components ([0007]-[0009]). Regarding claim 73, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 52 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that the first and second tyre models differ by elementary components used to create the structural components ([0007]-[0009]). Claim 59-61 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Winkler et al. (DE102005055609, w/ US20080190562 as the English equivalent) (of record) and Caretta et al. (EP1150829) (of record) in further view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art. Regarding claim 59, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 58 as set forth above. Additionally, applicant’s own specification (receipt date: 25 December 2021) teaches that in at least one of the first and second tyre models, a bending ratio between the distance between a radially outer distance of the tread band and a line passing by laterally opposite ends of the tread band, measured on a equatorial plane of the tyre model, and a distance measured along a tyre chord between the laterally opposite ends is more than or equal to, about 0.15 (p.2 L29-31, “in tyres for two-wheel vehicles, the value of the bending ratio R generally is not less than 0.15”, underline added for emphasis). Regarding claim 60, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 59 as set forth above. Additionally, applicant’s own specification teaches that the bending ratio is less than or equal to about 0.3 (p.2 L29-31). Regarding claim 61, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 59 as set forth above. Additionally, applicant’s own specification teaches that the bending ratio is less than or equal to 0.45 (p.2 L29-31). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding p.10-12 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that Winkler does not teach that the steps of building at one station occurring at the same time as transferring and releasing from another station and instead teaches that Winkler describes transporting between build stations simultaneously. While true that Winkler does teach that transportation between build stations can occur simultaneously ([0010]), Winkler also teaches that the travel between stations can be done in an alternating manner ([0010]) as opposed to simultaneously, the benefit of enabling “feeding through of drums” ([0007]) means the transfer of a drum past a work station can occur whether said work station is occupied by another drum or not, and given that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the benefit of building green tires “very economically in terms of time” ([0010]) could be, achieved, in part, by having various steps, including transferring and/or building, done while other steps are occurring, examiner disagrees with applicant’s arguments that the claimed invention does not read upon the prior art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is 571-272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30. 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749 /John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 23, 2021
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
May 01, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 07, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 12, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 13, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 09, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 01, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 19, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 19, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589567
GREEN TIRE MANUFACTURING METHOD AND GREEN TIRE MANUFACTURING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12552122
METHOD FOR PRODUCING COMPOSITE BLADE CLEATS FOR AN AIRCRAFT TURBINE ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12515426
PROCESS AND APPARATUS FOR LABELLING A GREEN TYRE FOR BICYCLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12447705
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING THE FEED OF SEMIFINISHED PRODUCTS IN A TYRE BUILDING PROCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
Patent 12441071
PROCESS AND PLANT FOR PRODUCING TYRES FOR VEHICLE WHEELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 14, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+35.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 183 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month