DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 52-73 and 75 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 " the building of the structural component of the second tyre model on the second forming support in the second work station" in L44-46. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, claim 52, L39-46 will be interpreted to read as “the second building step of the building the structural component of the second tyre model occurs in the second work station, wherein the transfer and the release of the first forming support holding the first tyre model form 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 in the second work station”
As claims 53-73 and 75 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 52, they stand as rejected for similar reasons.
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) and Caretta et al. (US20060096695, referred to from now on as Caretta ‘695).
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);
wherein the process includes a 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]), and
a 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 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]).
Additionally, it would have been within a person of ordinary skill in the art’s ability prior to the earliest effective priority date to have the transfer and release of the first forming support holding the first tyre model from the first work station to the second work station occurring 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 release of the second forming support holding the second tyre model from a 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 in the fourth work station, 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 occurring 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, or the transfer and the release of the first forming support holding the first tyre model from the first work station to the second work station occurring 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, given that Caretta ‘695, which is within the tire manufacturing, teaches that a plurality of workstations (“work stations” (6, 7, 8, 9)) which receives forming supports (“toroidal supports (A, B, C, D, E, F)) provides a step of transferring a forming support to a work station (via “stand-by stations” (20, 21, 22) associated with “work stations” (6, 7, 8)) while said workstation is engaged with another forming support ([0056]-[0057], [0064]-[0065], [0072]) for the benefit of minimizing and/or eliminating downtime ([0091]).
While Winkler does not explicitly disclose how wherein the step of building at least the first and second tyre models comprises upstream of the transfer and the release of the first forming support from the first work station to the second work station, and upstream of the transfer and the release of the second forming support from the third work station to the fourth work station, a step of selecting the second work station and the fourth work station among the plurality of work stations based on availability of the work stations, it would have been well within a person of ordinary skill in the art’s ability prior to the earliest effective priority date to do so, given that:
a) Winkler teaches that the intended path of a forming support can be selected based on characteristics of the system ([0007], with regards to work stations that can be alternately traveled to); and
b) Winkler’s disclosure emphasizes the importance of being economical with time ([0010]);
c) given that the selection of a workstation that is not available for receiving a forming support (as opposed to a workstation that is available) would result in the forming support having to wait until said workstation becomes available, and said waiting becoming downtime and process time lost, the selection of an appropriate station for the first or second forming support to travel to based on the availability of said work station prior to the release and transfer of a forming support from a workstation would be well within a person of ordinary skill’s ability to do for the predictable result of improving time-efficiency (see 2143(I)(A)).
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 second work station is also selected based on tyre model and on a structural component to be built ([0007]).
Regarding claim 57, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 52 as set forth above. Additionally, Winkler teaches that the fourth work station is also selected based on tyre model and on a structural component to be built ([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]).
Regarding claim 75, modified Winkler teaches all limitations of claim 52 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application for the transfer device to move on a guiding track, given that:
a) Winkler teaches the use of a guiding track ([0023] via “guide rails”) as a means for transporting forming supports ([0023]);
b) enabling the transfer devices with the robotized arms taught in Caretta to use the guide rails as taught in Winkler represents a combination of prior art elements to yield the predictable result of enabling the transfer devices to move between various workstations (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
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), Caretta et al. (EP1150829) (of record) and Caretta ‘695 et al. (US20060096695) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 58 and 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, see p.9-14, filed 8 April 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 52-73 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 52-73 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 52-73 regarding Winkler’s teachings to the timing of transfer/release and the building of structural components have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s remarks on p.19-20, applicant argues that the use of the word “generally” in the specification to describe that “in tyres for two-wheel vehicles, the value of the bending ratio R generally is not less than 0.15” does not make such a statement prior art. Examiner disagrees, noting that “A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as "prior art" is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102. Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1988)” (see MPEP 2129(I)). In the instant application, applicant’s use of the word “generally” implies that it is commonly known, which would be considered an admission of prior art.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, specifically for new claim 75, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights