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 .
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US20110088812) (of record) in view of Mitamura (JPH11268039A) (of record) (machine translation) and Kraft (US3310161) (of record).
Regarding claim 16, Singh (Fig 1-12) discloses a device for vulcanizing tires comprising:
at least one vulcanization chamber ("tire curing press" (16));
at least one loader for loading a tire blank into the at least one vulcanization chamber ("tire press loader" (66));
at least one unloader for unloading an at least partially vulcanized tire from the at least one vulcanization chamber ("loading arm" (40)), the at least one loader and the at least one unloader being handling devices ([0033], Fig 2, 6, in which both the “tire press loader” (66) and “loading arm” (40) are shown with some features allowed for handling tires);
at least one depositing apparatus ("tire discharge station" (44));
at least one posttreatment device (“inflator station” (20, 22));
at least one sliding device ("powered mechanism" (45)); and
wherein the at least one unloader is configured to unload the at least partially vulcanized tire from the at least one vulcanization chamber and deposit the at least partially vulcanized tire on the at least one depositing apparatus ([0021]), and
wherein the at least one sliding device is configured to push the at least partially vulcanized tire deposited on the depositing apparatus away to another location (Fig 10, 11, [0035] in that “powered mechanism” (45) pushes the “tire discharge station” (44) (and indirectly the tire on it) so that the “tire discharge station” (44) is at an incline, causing the tire on it to slide downwards),
wherein the at least one unloader is configured both for unloading the vulcanization chamber and for loading the at least one post-treatment device ([0021]), wherein the at least one unloader is further configured to move a center of the at least partially vulcanized tire from the at least one vulcanization chamber to the at least one post-treatment device on a track so that the at least partially vulcanized tires are movable around structural elements of the device for vulcanizing tires ([0021], Fig 3),
wherein the structural elements are located between the at least one vulcanizing chamber and the at least one post-treatment device (Fig 3).
Examiner notes that as Singh teaches the movement of partially vulcanized tires relative to the structural elements of the device for vulcanizing tires (Fig 3, [0021]), it is also considered to teach the movement of partially vulcanized tires around the structural elements of the device for vulcanizing tires, with “movable around” interpreted as being “movable in relation to”.
While Singh does not explicitly disclose that the device further comprises a conveyor belt and that the another location the sliding device is configured to push the at least partially vulcanized tire deposited on the depositing apparatus towards is the conveyor, 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 Mitamura, which is within the tire vulcanization art, teaches that a device for vulcanizing tires that includes a depositing apparatus (“discharge conveyor” (5)) can comprise of a conveyor belt (“output conveyor” (6)) onto which a tire from the depositing apparatus can be deposited onto ([0020]) to ensure the proper transport of the vulcanized tire towards further stations, such as a tire inspection machine or to a shipping location ([0020]).
While Singh does not expressly teach the shape of the track is curved when view from above and that the track curves in two opposing directions, 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 Kraft, which is analogous to Singh with regards to the use of devices to transport components, teaches that the use of conveyors with horizontal curves (which would include curved track shapes) for transporting products are a known means (C1 L1-21) for the desirable predictable outcome of non-linear movement (C1 L1-21). Additionally and alternatively, case law holds that changes in 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). In the instant case, the shape of the track is considered to be a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 18, modified Singh teaches all limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. Additionally, Singh teaches that the device is a double heating press (Fig 2) comprising a first vulcanization chamber and a second vulcanization chamber (“tire curing press cavities” (16A, 16B)).
Regarding claim 19, modified Singh teaches all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. Additionally, Singh teaches that the device further comprises a first post-treatment device assigned to the first vulcanization chamber (“inflator station” (20, 22)) and a first depositing apparatus assigned to the first post-treatment device (“tire discharge station” (44)), and a second post-treatment device assigned to the second vulcanization chamber and a second depositing apparatus assigned to the second post-treatment device ([0017], Fig 1, 2).
Regarding claim 20, modified Singh teaches all limitations of claim 19 as set forth above. Additionally, Singh teaches that the at least one sliding device includes an individual sliding device assigned to each depositing apparatus (Fig 2, 10, 11, “powered mechanism” (45), [0028]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Singh teaches all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. While Singh does not explicitly disclose that the double heating press is configured for truck tires, 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 Singh teaches that tires of a wide variety of sizes can be worked upon ([0019]) and does not teach away from using the device for any particular tire as it does not explicitly “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed” (See MPEP 2141.02(VI)). One would have been motivated to have the double heating press configured for truck tires as the double heating press is recognized for use with tires, which includes truck tires. Examiner notes that “truck tires” are considered to be an article worked upon by the claimed device and as such, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims" (See MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 22, modified Singh teaches all limitations of claim 16. While Singh does not explicitly disclose that the device for vulcanizing tires has a width of approximately 3.0 m to 3.1 m, 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 since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). One would have been motivated to scale the width of the device for vulcanizing tires to be 3.0 to 3.1 m in order to ensure that there is enough space for all the necessary equipment to be setup and operated.
Regarding claim 23, modified Singh teaches all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. Additionally, Singh teaches that the device further comprises a first loader assigned to the first vulcanization chamber (“tire press loader” (66)), and a second loader assigned to the second vulcanization chamber (Fig 2, unlabeled component with similar design to “tire press loader” (66)).
Regarding claim 24, modified Singh teaches all limitations of claim 23 as set forth above. Additionally, Singh teaches that the first loader and the second loader are configured to be actuatable in parallel so that the vulcanization chambers are loaded in parallel (Fig 1, 2, [0017], in that there are at least two “tire curing press cavities” that can be operated independently of one another).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument on p.9 that the teachings of Kraft is non-analogous art compared to Singh, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the teaching of non-linear movement during component transport is analogous to the transport of tires within a tire vulcanization apparatus.
Regarding p.9-14 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that the S-shaped track (being interpreted by the examiner as meaning the limitation of “a track that is curved when viewed from above, wherein the track curves in two opposing directions” and not specifically an “S-shape”) is not a design choice and is responsible for the supposed benefit of reduced machine width, pointing to Figures/Pictures from previously uncited references and patents. Examiner disagrees, noting that it is unclear how said Figures/Pictures are tied in to the prior art of record used as the basis of rejecting the claimed invention (including Singh, Mitamura and Kraft) or how said Figures/Pictures show that the prior art of record is rendered unable to make the modifications of the claimed invention. Applicant is welcome to submit a declaration or affidavit demonstrating further evidence of unexpected results and/or a showing of incompatibility of the prior art combination for further consideration. Additionally, examiner notes that complete copies of the sources of the submitted figures/pictures and the cited reference of EP3393774A1 have not been provided in an Information Disclosure Statement.
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
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights